Re: [webfinger] Automated Service Configuration now uses webfinger

"Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> Tue, 09 July 2013 04:24 UTC

Return-Path: <paulej@packetizer.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 D22B521F9BA6 for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 21:24:47 -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=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 A-J6que7Ico9 for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 21:24:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dublin.packetizer.com (dublin.packetizer.com [75.101.130.125]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F31A621F9B9C for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 21:24:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sydney (rrcs-98-101-148-48.midsouth.biz.rr.com [98.101.148.48]) (authenticated bits=0) by dublin.packetizer.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r694OVtK017261 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 9 Jul 2013 00:24:33 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=packetizer.com; s=dublin; t=1373343873; bh=SNspGitcyQ/BdBsSpwYvbwF5T/oviuEnc8CDIz3wkwU=; h=From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=nTBJrcWCbxFlQJuV0bq3kVzL4v4CssACAQsuU8M2xqlgj4e9hZu56hz3ioiCPuR8f IZd7KLZ1uObIWIlZ3/Ske+RLUSQNVcm9xxFTzUFuaaPZrlGgD9kb1n3TJtYvodisCf Xfwr8ETMdXcTPLf4SwlyJylrNEG7Oe2G0MxqslVI=
From: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
To: 'Cyrus Daboo' <cyrus@daboo.name>, webfinger@ietf.org
References: <F23E5FFF11431C634EC5CA18@caldav.corp.apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <F23E5FFF11431C634EC5CA18@caldav.corp.apple.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 00:24:35 -0400
Message-ID: <036001ce7c5c$38d87b70$aa897250$@packetizer.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Content-Language: en-us
Thread-Index: AQNMTePL77yC9mRw9jaL/5G+2vzIp5ZgGVVw
Subject: Re: [webfinger] Automated Service Configuration now uses webfinger
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: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 04:24:47 -0000

Cyrus,

I had a quick look over the new draft.  I do think it's good that this will
utilize WebFinger in order to retrieve service discovery information.

I am curious about one thing.  When issuing a query to the WF server, the
server returns a link relation of type "service-configuration".  The
associated URL in the Appendix B example is
"https://example.com/service-config".  Since the response from the WF server
is for a specific identifier (user), I believe this URL should point
directly to the service config document for the user.

For example, what I would expect the example in Appendix B to look like
would be this (changed line denoted with !):

   {
     "subject" : "acct:cyrus@example.com",
     "links" :
     [
       {
         "rel" : "service-configuration",
         "type" : "application/json",
!        "href" : "https://example.com/service-config?id=cyrus@example.com"
       }
     ]
   }

Or perhaps like:

   {
     "subject" : "acct:cyrus@example.com",
     "links" :
     [
       {
         "rel" : "service-configuration",
         "type" : "application/json",
!        "href" : "https://example.com/service-config/cyrus.json"
       }
     ]
   }

I believe for all examples we've considered with WF so far, there was no
need for the client to perform any manipulation on the URI for the specific
link relation.  The examples in this document are the first to do that.  Is
there a reason?  Can I persuade you to put the user-specific URL right into
the WebFinger response?

Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: webfinger-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:webfinger-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Cyrus Daboo
> Sent: Friday, July 05, 2013 10:17 AM
> To: webfinger@ietf.org
> Subject: [webfinger] Automated Service Configuration now uses webfinger
> 
> Hi folks,
> I have recently posted a new version of the Automated Service
> Configuration
> draft (formerly known as Aggregated Service Discovery):
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-daboo-aggregated-service-
> discovery/>.
> 
> This protocol now makes use of webfinger to "bootstrap" discovery of the
> config document. Hopefully it will serve as a useful example of how
> webfinger can be used by specific applications. I would appreciate
> feedback
> from the webfinger community on how we have gone about using webfinger,
> thanks.
> 
> --
> Cyrus Daboo
> 
> _______________________________________________
> webfinger mailing list
> webfinger@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger