Re: [webfinger] Server Response language

Will Norris <will@willnorris.com> Mon, 08 July 2013 21:27 UTC

Return-Path: <wnorris@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 90CB321F9DF1 for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 14:27:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 9sCrwqUfCGBw for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 14:27:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x233.google.com (mail-we0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9188F21F9C2D for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 14:27:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f179.google.com with SMTP id w59so4075852wes.38 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 14:27:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=Kf8bH1NGlF5imHQ0GDQlM/fYnZskdDr/lch3GnUGS1s=; b=MQkybI4RejwoIh4RcgvINR0OUP/7cOj0qxBIzuKWZLxhuu8CIztn+z3xhNN2iTx6Nx vz2A+AvTFHBUL7vrhnDJzhQE34ftgJgbzGaaT4x0w/OIzD+wECZDDniuJEM4DmD3y7li cFR1s4FsJjijA2C2ahgc8e4Xf1z6GM37lL6R6+TjTfovWdmTEe9Fb+MHg1LE4VNy3AID 7vWqDm54ag3q6GBmnU9CRp/23uM2bglfF1aWRz6yOwVt18FgkosA6nTsHx4gb8ovxsXP 4O1scpxImapdR1vnVoqIddrU2mX2BGt67p8UNuXfkjG0eGtYfO3UnWzZlzpsVJ/18//+ Slqw==
X-Received: by 10.180.189.5 with SMTP id ge5mr877450wic.48.1373318862509; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 14:27:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: wnorris@gmail.com
Received: by 10.195.12.202 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 14:27:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20130708204135.GB30054@sources.org>
References: <044501cddece$fd045040$f70cf0c0$@packetizer.com> <CAHBU6itveCHU+M4A1msr_YQdW9JcrVNmfOmcjFwacLkE-pAYrA@mail.gmail.com> <048401cdded8$605d6c90$211845b0$@packetizer.com> <CAHBU6it45YFr6A+AUm3ub1roXqP99QG4jnEWpbvZew5ejhXt2Q@mail.gmail.com> <04c701cddedc$3f996000$becc2000$@packetizer.com> <20130708204135.GB30054@sources.org>
From: Will Norris <will@willnorris.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 14:27:12 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: OQqt-2G78wSjJQZzOTYsmR8NBfk
Message-ID: <CAJqAn3zRNHSqAO3sWFkXZZMFxUNMdcW6LO=-ba0K0tokkz7rqg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c2239af69ea604e106b60b"
Cc: "webfinger@ietf.org" <webfinger@ietf.org>
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: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 21:27:44 -0000

In a webfinger query, the HTTP resource being requested is the full
"/.well-known/webfinger?resource=acct:user@domain.com".  If the host
doesn't have any metadata for "acct:user@domain.com", what else would they
return, aside from a 404?  I agree with Tim that simply referencing HTTP
should be sufficient here.

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 01:02:59PM -0500,
>  Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote
>  a message of 383 lines which said:
>
> > But there server did find something.  It found the "webfinger"
> > resource.
>

But that wasn't the HTTP resource that was requested (unless of course you
*actually* requested just "/.well-known/webfinger").  Section 3.4 of
rfc3986 makes it clear that the query string is part of the resource
identifier (as opposed to rfc2396 which left it somewhat ambiguous)


> 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.
>
> It seems that this thread died without a conclusion? I see nothing in
> -15 about the server's return code (all examples are success, with a
> 200 code). Tim Bray claimed that it should simply follow the standard
> rules of HTTP but, as far as I know, there are no standard rules when
> /.well-known/webfinger is found *but* the resource is not. 200? 401?
> 404?
>
> GET /.well-known/webfinger?resource=acct%3ADOESNOTEXIST%40example.comHTTP/1.1
>
> _______________________________________________
> webfinger mailing list
> webfinger@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger
>