[webfinger] Server Response language

"Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> Thu, 20 December 2012 16:28 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 C1AB421F895F for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:28:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.544
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.544 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.054, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8zTmdq1TREQV for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:28:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dublin.packetizer.com (dublin.packetizer.com [75.101.130.125]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A23D21F8928 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:27:58 -0800 (PST)
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 qBKGRull031579 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 20 Dec 2012 11:27:56 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=packetizer.com; s=dublin; t=1356020877; bh=Q8weRrPSnP8w4Q63V87hVH0aJndjCVmColBUW9KZ698=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=QKlmrt94bYrh1KphHOjjlv8DZ1asgoM006XLGyeBYElDVeDeEu4Yeg5iqPwC9nfP/ s24/As9HIJ5A150H234nTGqmxcRJh2inl+W0bRgcWaDgv7tb+VqPjit7Sj7vsjAX1y 7IMtgDxbghUCSUbs15pjWa7VaU5ss3Ckx2Ia34ys=
From: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
To: webfinger@ietf.org, webfinger@googlegroups.com
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 11:28:04 -0500
Message-ID: <044501cddece$fd045040$f70cf0c0$@packetizer.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0446_01CDDEA5.142E9660"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: Ac3ezrqCn0N7G4fYTMSGK1aRa6TeCQ==
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: [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: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:28:18 -0000

Folks,

 

We had this previously:

 

"If the client queries the WebFinger server and provides a URI for which the
server has no information, the server MUST return a 404 status code."

 

Someone posted to the list that we should talk about positive replies and
mention that a client might be rejected with a 401.  So, I wrote this text
to be appended to the end of that above paragraph:

 

"If the server is able to provide information in response to a request, it
MUST do so using an appropriate 2xx HTTP status code and including the
requested representation in the body of the response.  A server MAY also
return other HTTP status codes, as appropriate, such as a 401 to indicate
that the client is not authorized to issue a request to the server."

 

Is this agreeable?  Please suggest wording changes, if not.

 

Paul