Re: [webfinger] Simplifying and unjamming WebFinger

Eric - 

I'm a huge advocate of increased agility in the IETF standardization process and I certainly wish we had the luxury of a deadline, but I'm afraid that IESG review doesn't work that way.  We're going to have roll up our sleeves and do it the old-fashioned way...come to an agreement that satisfies the ADs, yet retains our agreed upon consensus of what the Webfinger protocol/framework should be.  Mike's most recent email providing different options to break this gridlock is a great start.

Gonzalo

On Jun 14, 2013, at 11:03 PM, Eric Mill <konklone@gmail.com> wrote:

> In that case, how about a deadline?
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Gonzalo Salgueiro <gsalguei@cisco.com> wrote:
> Finally, a voice of reason has spoken.  Thanks, Mike!
> 
> When we are in the process of clearing the final two DISCUSSes in IESG review is not the time to start over from scratch.  We spent years of very long discussion coming to consensus on the document we have now....one, I might add, that we were all supportive of.  Pete Resnick is asking some reasonable questions regarding the document providing enough client instruction on URI selection for the purposes of information retrieval.  Let's just decide if we need additional text and,when possible, offer it concretely to speed things along.
> 
> Gonzalo
> 
> 
> On Jun 14, 2013, at 2:19 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> > Tim, I’m not sure where the feeling of despair comes from, other than finishing things always seems to take longer than it should.  (I agree with you there.)
> >
> > That said, I can’t support changes to WebFinger that restrict it’s applicability to only e-mail addresses, and if you’re being consistent with your desire to have OpenID Connect succeed, neither can you.  OpenID Connect uses the ability of WebFinger to return metadata about URIs that are not e-mail addresses.  See http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-discovery-1_0.html#URLSyntax and http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-discovery-1_0.html#host.port.example for example uses with URLs.
> >
> > My take-away from this is that those of us who care about finishing WebFinger should double down in our participation to constructively help finish the IESG review process.  I would only despair if we went back to the drawing board, because that would set us back by years and destroy the chance of finishing something that’s nearly done and has been demonstrated to meet open discovery needs in practice.
> >
> >                                                                 -- Mike
> >
> > From: webfinger-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:webfinger-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tim Bray
> > Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 10:17 AM
> > To: webfinger@ietf.org
> > Subject: [webfinger] Simplifying and unjamming WebFinger
> >
> > I’ve been following the endless back and forth on this with a feeling of despair... people seem to be talking back and forth past each other.  Lots of people think there are problems, Paul thinks there are no problems.
> >
> > Back in the day, when I first heard of WebFinger, it was the simplest thing imaginable: Put in an email address and get back some pointers to IDPs or whatever.  Somewhere along the way, it morphed into getting metadata about any Resource.  Which meant that you couldn’t just use an email address, you had to turn it into a URI.
> >
> > And thus the problem in the spec.  You have to figure out which URI scheme to use (acct:, mailto:, device:) and this will affect the output in ways that have to be specified in Other Places.
> >
> > But I don’t have a general-purpose problem about wanting metadata for arbitrary URIs.  I have several immediate pressing problems for retrieving metadata about  email addresses.   The former is now seriously getting in the way of the latter.
> >
> > So, how about a WebFinger light, in which the form of the query is
> >
> > /.well-known/wf-lite?email=bob@example.com
> >
> > Which yields a JRD.  You could still have the rel-selection and so on. It would be easy to understand. It would be self-contained. The draft would shrink in size dramatically. It would be instantly usable by OpenID Connect.  It would probably sail through the IESG.
> >
> >
> >  -T
> > _______________________________________________
> > webfinger mailing list
> > webfinger@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger
> 
> _______________________________________________
> webfinger mailing list
> webfinger@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> @konklone | konklone.com | sunlightfoundation.com | awesomefoundation.org
> _______________________________________________
> webfinger mailing list
> webfinger@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger