Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted

"Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> Sat, 17 August 2013 18:32 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 D426711E8241 for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Aug 2013 11:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 IaStMZrZ73fW for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Aug 2013 11:32:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dublin.packetizer.com (dublin.packetizer.com [75.101.130.125]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4844711E823B for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Aug 2013 11:32:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [100.118.102.42] (me54636d0.tmodns.net [208.54.70.229]) (authenticated bits=0) by dublin.packetizer.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r7HIWPTU017560 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 17 Aug 2013 14:32:30 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=packetizer.com; s=dublin; t=1376764350; bh=Y3Xr/HWbl4ZnZDGRrBeY8FsQ66ejqCDxVnNoHAdQFIw=; h=In-Reply-To:References:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Subject:From: Date:To:CC:Message-ID; b=gquVY870Alhgk2tPgNdz5IyDJYUNw2TaHCQz90Z/7WtSlxI2hiszpYchJ1FKzgY3D eNp7vETvvb8HU98x6kQjy57Tqul4jdVtJRGm7797McYzXtItwc1qhyA+zsngSDlA6+ 3rqSLMQUz6yBydzat25b1omRKOWGEWfS1aJR1+WQ=
User-Agent: Kaiten Mail
In-Reply-To: <CAKaEYh+i38utNp=ML3Qnut2OeoKPRPKhpquUOx5UUqp1Y+Pyiw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <087c01ce951a$e32da1f0$a988e5d0$@packetizer.com> <CAKaEYh+i38utNp=ML3Qnut2OeoKPRPKhpquUOx5UUqp1Y+Pyiw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----XMAZUSBFUTJ6TCRUFRHHXTNR8YDC5C"
From: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 14:32:19 -0400
To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ac5fdc3a-01e3-4af6-a013-1b1a90b17a0e@email.android.com>
Cc: webfinger <webfinger@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted
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: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 18:32:37 -0000

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.

Paul


-------- Original Message --------
From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Sent: Sat Aug 17 14:12:11 EDT 2013
To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
Cc: webfinger <webfinger@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted

On 9 August 2013 18:09, Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com> 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
> webfinger@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger
>