Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted

[Nick Jennings <[e-mail]>]

+1


On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Paul E. Jones <[e-mail]>wrote:

> Bob,****
>
> ** **
>
> I’m OK with that change, if we’re permitted to make this type of change
> now.****
>
> ** **
>
> Paul****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Bob
> Wyman
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 17, 2013 5:05 PM
> *To:* Paul E. Jones
> *Cc:* Melvin Carvalho; Mike Jones; webfinger
>
> *Subject:* Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted****
>
> ** **
>
> I would prefer if the wording didn't require that order of listing is
> required to indicate a necessary order of preference. Thus, I suggest the
> following wording:****
>
> The order of elements in the "links" array *MAY be read as indicating* an order of preference.****
>
> The idea is to permit readers to infer order of preference, and to allow writers to express that order, without requiring that a preferred order be determined or expressed. Where there is no preferred order, there will be no harm. Where there is a preferred order, the right thing will happen.****
>
> bob wyman****
>
> ** **
>
> On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Paul E. Jones <[e-mail]>
> wrote:****
>
> Why not have the client always offer items in the array in order? Any
> reason to randomly select items from the array?****
>
> Paul****
>
> ** **
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Melvin Carvalho <[e-mail]>****
>
> *Sent:* Sat Aug 17 14:49:05 EDT 2013
> *To:* Mike Jones <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* "Paul E. Jones" <[e-mail]>, webfinger <
> [e-mail]>****
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On 17 August 2013 20:45, Mike Jones <[e-mail]> wrote:**
> **
>
> When used, the ordering can do good.  When not used, it does no harm.
> Please leave it in.****
>
> ** **
>
> Mike, my question related to how the client can *know* when it's used and
> when it's not used.  This seems unclear?****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>                                                             Thanks,****
>
>                                                             -- Mike****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] *On
> Behalf Of *Melvin Carvalho
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 17, 2013 11:40 AM
> *To:* Paul E. Jones
> *Cc:* webfinger****
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> On 17 August 2013 20:32, Paul E. Jones <[e-mail]> wrote:****
>
> Melvin,****
>
> We have been asked about this before. If we leave it in, it meets the
> needs of some. I admit there might be cases where it's hard to control
> order, but if it matters, there is at least a way.****
>
> In my own implementation, I assign an integer value to each entry and sort
> on that.****
>
> I have no strong objection either way, but I do think it's good to have
> for those who care.****
>
>  ****
>
> I understand the trade offs.  However, I can see that this is useful in
> many cases, particularly this would work well for openid, but other use
> cases, eg to have a friends list, for something like a federated social
> web, would then be perhaps impractical with JRD (not the end of the world,
> though)****
>
>  ****
>
> Paul****
>
>  ****
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Melvin Carvalho <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Sat Aug 17 14:12:11 EDT 2013
> *To:* "Paul E. Jones" <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* webfinger <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> On 9 August 2013 18:09, Paul E. Jones <[e-mail]> wrote:****
>
> Folks,
>
> As we're trying to bring the WebFinger spec to a close, we published a new
> version -17 with some changes the WG might want to consider.
>
> Draft is:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-webfinger-17
>
> Those changes are:
>
> - Section 2, added a new last paragraph to explain what URI syntax we use
> in
> WebFinger
> - Corrected error in section 3.2 ("Host:" line in example and quotes around
> "3.2")
> - We remove the words "absolute URI" since it's really redundant
> - Added "query target" to 4.5 for clarity
> - Introduced a new section 8 that describes "WebFinger" applications.  This
> is a major new addition.
> - Added a new section 10.3 and 10.4 to address registration of link
> relation
> types and properties.  Link relations types already have a registry and we
> refer to existing procedures.  WebFinger properties did not have a
> registry,
> so we define one, primarily for the purpose of helping people avoid
> creating
> redundant definitions.
>
> If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to post to the
> list.****
>
>
> [[****
>
>    The order of elements in the "links" array indicates an order of****
>
>    preference.  Thus, if there are two or more link relations having the****
>
>    same "rel" value, the first link relation would indicate the user's****
>
>    preferred link.****
>
> ]]
>  ****
>
> Maybe remove this altogether, as I am unsure it can be guaranteed.****
>
> Case 1: Let's say I have a list of friends, how am I to determine as a
> server the preferred friends?  How am I to determine as a client whether
> the friends are ordered or not?****
>
> Case 2: Say I mash up data from two sources, how do I then order the
> combined list?****
>
>  ****
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> webfinger mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> webfinger mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> webfinger mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger
>
>