Re: [webfinger] Webfinger and URI vs IRI

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Mon, 22 July 2013 21:45 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@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 A87F611E80D3 for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 14:45:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 FZDkh62NJakT for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 14:45:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qe0-x22e.google.com (mail-qe0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c02::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0DA411E80C5 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 14:45:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qe0-f46.google.com with SMTP id nd7so4042313qeb.19 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 14:45:10 -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:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=8wJq0SR9CXq1peKG5UACKALy3jdy5FWgYDxBujiSXXw=; b=ixTHUiqNS5jqO8qYdEzZNClzxzWtVwWmIw3FN3KBPMUgXiq5F4CN0x+WKWYoS1gjmI qpVoOsaYVKyMuwGBONgd81vs6/wmVY333+MIz/E+O05W/K9AfvZLDXrJ9bndoKDZ++8a 8FfNcKSAqPUXar29BOhkUDM6NZCVfOkg/72zqFDgFeNF+seL+pbLABcxPOjGtHjSA4ru yFypT/RY6CROLPAoDeSHMSrvFvth6O2e8RojJKk+su7szFaVIwltRMtuX/QRjEId0tFu ts8ioQdlDlrXP5vQvvd8dXlZLae4eo9tGUNbV7HZqRwK9syGPgmUsrSvsHBmXtpwcvZQ 70PQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.229.214.202 with SMTP id hb10mr8212803qcb.113.1374529510006; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 14:45:10 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.224.59.211 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 14:45:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.224.59.211 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 14:45:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <042f01ce8722$4d98a410$e8c9ec30$@packetizer.com>
References: <028301ce869f$596c12a0$0c4437e0$@packetizer.com> <CAC4RtVCvfzy8m2Tx8fsjoCgstPkf-B5PAkAXumDLqKqhh6ETnA@mail.gmail.com> <042f01ce8722$4d98a410$e8c9ec30$@packetizer.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 17:45:09 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: vzqtZ5_OyhY-OV978bE4xRjaBiM
Message-ID: <CALaySJLPTksWuoi0ujewE0s1GgStfKaReG616idsiD_hdy5F8g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11339b322d662404e2209775
Cc: webfinger@ietf.org, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Martin_J=2E_D=FCrst?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Subject: Re: [webfinger] Webfinger and URI vs IRI
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, 22 Jul 2013 21:45:13 -0000

> So, if IRIs are truly only for presentation, then the latter example above
> should be what WF servers return. The query target is always a
> percent-encoded URI, so it’s a non-issue.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Barry
On Jul 22, 2013 5:27 PM, "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:

> Barry,****
>
> ** **
>
> The reason I raise this is that RFC 5988 refers to the target IRI (the
> “href” in WebFinger link relation) and context IRI (the “subject” and
> “aliases” in WebFinger).  Only ASCII is used in some protocols, so the IRIs
> must be formatted as URIs.****
>
> ** **
>
> However, JRD is JSON and, therefore, Unicode.  Thus, we could easily
> accommodate links like this:****
>
> ** **
>
>   {****
>
>     "rel" : "test2",****
>
>     "href" : "http://example.org/私の 文書.txt"****
>
> }****
>
> ** **
>
> As opposed this form:****
>
> ** **
>
>   {****
>
>     "rel" : "test2",****
>
>     "href" : "
> http://example.org/%E7%A7%81%E3%81%AE%20%E6%96%87%E6%9B%B8.txt"****
>
> }****
>
> ** **
>
> I have no strong preference, but the text did have IRI mentioned in one
> place in the JRD spec section, but it was not consistent through the
> document.  Everywhere else, we specified URI.****
>
> ** **
>
> So, if IRIs are truly only for presentation, then the latter example above
> should be what WF servers return.  The query target is always a
> percent-encoded URI, so it’s a non-issue.****
>
> ** **
>
> Paul****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com [mailto:
> barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Barry Leiba
> *Sent:* Monday, July 22, 2013 4:30 PM
> *To:* Paul E. Jones
> *Cc:* Martin J. Dürst; webfinger@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [webfinger] Webfinger and URI vs IRI****
>
> ** **
>
> I believe WF should only use URIs.  I believe that IRIs are a presentation
> layer thing.****
>
> Barry****
>
> On Jul 22, 2013 1:50 AM, "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:***
> *
>
> Folks,
>
> The term URI is used almost exclusively in the WebFinger spec, with IRI
> appearing only twice (outside of the reference).  This is because URI is
> used in RFC 6415 almost exclusively.  However, RFC 5988 uses the term IRI
> in
> most of the text.  That said, RFC 5988 also says things like the "target
> IRI
> as a URI-Reference" ...
>
> I feel like we have a terminology problem and it's not quite clear to me
> how
> to fix it.  Should we change every instance of URI to IRI?  Should URI be
> used in most places, with IRI discussed specifically somewhere?  Or is
> there
> even a need to mention IRI given that IRIs can be converted to URIs?
>
> I would really like to get this right, but it definitely does not look
> right
> now with only one normative use of IRI in section 4.4.4.  Who can help me
> with this?
>
> Paul
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> webfinger mailing list
> webfinger@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger****
>