Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted

Mike Jones <> Sat, 17 August 2013 18:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A13711E8245 for <>; Sat, 17 Aug 2013 11:47:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.508
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.508 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.090, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id diCCIxP3FFVr for <>; Sat, 17 Aug 2013 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94B1211E81E3 for <>; Sat, 17 Aug 2013 11:47:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.745.25; Sat, 17 Aug 2013 18:47:03 +0000
Received: from (2a01:111:f400:7c09::25) by (2a01:111:e400:879::23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.745.25 via Frontend Transport; Sat, 17 Aug 2013 18:47:02 +0000
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.745.15 via Frontend Transport; Sat, 17 Aug 2013 18:47:02 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0136.001; Sat, 17 Aug 2013 18:46:21 +0000
From: Mike Jones <>
To: Melvin Carvalho <>, "Paul E. Jones" <>
Thread-Topic: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 18:45:47 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <087c01ce951a$e32da1f0$a988e5d0$> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436B7A8D1ETK5EX14MBXC283r_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:; CTRY:US; IPV:CAL; IPV:NLI; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(52044002)(164054003)(25584003)(377454003)(189002)(199002)(24454002)(74876001)(69226001)(54356001)(81542001)(4396001)(79102001)(56776001)(47976001)(66066001)(47446002)(56816003)(74662001)(81816001)(31966008)(81342001)(74706001)(74502001)(53806001)(77096001)(76482001)(20776003)(80976001)(65816001)(54316002)(71186001)(55846006)(59766001)(74366001)(77982001)(51856001)(512954002)(19300405004)(6806004)(46102001)(47736001)(49866001)(80022001)(50986001)(15202345003)(63696002)(19580405001)(19580385001)(83322001)(76786001)(83072001)(76796001)(16236675002)(19580395003)(81686001)(33656001)(44976005); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR03MB246;; CLIP:; RD:InfoDomainNonexistent; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
X-O365ENT-EOP-Header: Message processed by - O365_ENT: Allow from ranges (Engineering ONLY)
X-Forefront-PRVS: 0941B96580
X-MS-Exchange-CrossPremises-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossPremises-AVStamp-Service: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossPremises-SCL: 1
X-MS-Exchange-CrossPremises-Antispam-ScanContext: DIR:Originating; SFV:NSPM; SKIP:0;
X-MS-Exchange-CrossPremises-Processed-By-Journaling: Journal Agent
Cc: webfinger <>
Subject: Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of the Webfinger protocol proposal in the Applications Area <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 18:47:19 -0000

When used, the ordering can do good.  When not used, it does no harm.  Please leave it in.

                                                            -- Mike

From: [] On Behalf Of Melvin Carvalho
Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2013 11:40 AM
To: Paul E. Jones
Cc: webfinger
Subject: Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted

On 17 August 2013 20:32, Paul E. Jones <<>> wrote:


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.

I understand the trade offs.  However, I can see that this is useful in many cases, particularly this would work well for openid, but other use cases, eg to have a friends list, for something like a federated social web, would then be perhaps impractical with JRD (not the end of the world, though)


From: Melvin Carvalho <<>>
Sent: Sat Aug 17 14:12:11 EDT 2013
To: "Paul E. Jones" <<>>
Cc: webfinger <<>>
Subject: Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted

On 9 August 2013 18:09, Paul E. Jones <<>> wrote:

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:

Those changes are:

- Section 2, added a new last paragraph to explain what URI syntax we use in
- Corrected error in section 3.2 ("Host:" line in example and quotes around
- 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?


webfinger mailing list<>