Re: [webfinger] Absolute URI vs URI

Nat Sakimura <sakimura@gmail.com> Tue, 23 July 2013 02:36 UTC

Return-Path: <sakimura@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 73C2A11E81D3 for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 19:36:51 -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=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-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 S2LX4sspdTQJ for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 19:36:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x22d.google.com (mail-la0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F00B11E81D2 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 19:36:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f45.google.com with SMTP id ev20so4076611lab.4 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 19:36:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=yfSv55YtrqOU8QTIaBEUO+ji2Zxz7KWBbORoAmZbvg0=; b=ZTgHwOkEFTjKu5NNzEhgD+vrugvwu0ntR6sjhupeX/+SC2Vmo47sPOEoLFiV7dE/R8 LYwili/NWkiBF9XdrFBKpUYYeIde6t2CqyClH+JTfZI6oFbf+qDfesGw3h+ZPcYDA9i4 CPdu5uK4vbhV3HRtkFPs84LBC0YZb2LUiA2Nk47JB9C8qfDE3TzFLlSKZzH4bZyXLRtO RxSKcC3hixzL6WD7ZFF80HWDKrnwgok7CqYFmt1DgjvkbY3yxVeRMySzlI9rqAyZoxNQ Xe62wyDHn9tzvX6KQ1fxJQ4v+AxJHQudq239tXu7mHV5bt9LBE2Zfe/rK/OfkvffztG6 8aVw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.29.227 with SMTP id n3mr13695377lah.43.1374547008484; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 19:36:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.199.33 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 19:36:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <9AA3BB39-01F1-4E73-99BC-C7ECD0D839C7@ve7jtb.com>
References: <028101ce869e$f02cddb0$d0869910$@packetizer.com> <CAKaEYhJwpR5b6jEcGYzAcWDJ0P1v6w2+L_h0Sh=m-ZOZA=ZHyw@mail.gmail.com> <0a1140f5-24d9-4be6-aab4-1ae6a3d63c0c@email.android.com> <CAKaEYh+iHNz_WawqRKakrHCdctC6_1V5COWYWQ4m9aC0+fh9WQ@mail.gmail.com> <032701ce86e5$27b2dff0$77189fd0$@packetizer.com> <9AA3BB39-01F1-4E73-99BC-C7ECD0D839C7@ve7jtb.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 11:36:48 +0900
Message-ID: <CABzCy2Dx1uf57LW5B7dSBSnXXtrp49=GHF-q3b4Wj-MQ68zWXQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nat Sakimura <sakimura@gmail.com>
To: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158c76c2afc9e04e224aae4
Cc: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, webfinger <webfinger@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [webfinger] Absolute URI vs URI
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, 23 Jul 2013 02:36:51 -0000

+1


2013/7/22 John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>

> Yes +1.
>
> On 2013-07-22, at 10:10 AM, "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:
>
> Melvin,****
>
> It’s easy enough to replace strings in URIs should data need to be
> ported.  I suggest we remove the word “absolute” where we currently have
> “absolute URI” and then introduce a new paragraph in the terminology
> section as follows:****
>
> The use of URIs throughout this document refers to URIs following the
> syntax specified in Section 3 of RFC 3986.  Relative URIs, having syntax
> following that of Section 4.2 or RFC 3986, are not used with WebFinger.***
> *
>
> Is that clear?****
>
> Paul****
>
> *From:* Melvin Carvalho [mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, July 22, 2013 4:09 AM
> *To:* Paul E. Jones
> *Cc:* webfinger
> *Subject:* Re: [webfinger] Absolute URI vs URI****
> ** **
> ** **
>
> ** **
> On 22 July 2013 09:06, Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:****
>
> In not suggesting we use or allow relative URIs. The immediate question
> would be "relative to what". I think the URIs should be absolute, but not
> following the syntax of "absolute-URI", but instead just following "URI".*
> ***
> Yes, that's a good question.  Generally relative URIs are relative to the
> document, but they need not be.  For example they could be relative by
> default to the [supposed] webfinger registry.  In JSON LD they have a
> @context variable which allows quite a bit of flexibility in this regard.
> I'm unsure if relative URIs are considered a must in standards based
> serialization (I suspect not) but they have the advantage of slightly
> increased data portability.****
>  ****
>
> Paul****
>
> ** **
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Mon Jul 22 02:46:25 EDT 2013****
>
> *To:* "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>****
> *Cc:* webfinger <webfinger@ietf.org>****
>
> *Subject:* Re: [webfinger] Absolute URI vs URI****
> ** **
> ** **
> ** **
> ** **
> On 22 July 2013 07:47, Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:****
> Folks,
>
> One of the requirements in the JRD spec is that certain URIs (e.g., those
> identifying link relation types and properties) be "absolute URIs".  This
> term has been a point of confusion, since RFC 3986 uses the term to have a
> concrete meaning, namely this:
>
>      absolute-URI  = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ]
>
> And the term is used, because that's the term used in the OASIS XRD
> specification.  However, it was not clear to me whether that referred to
> the
> above (which I assumed) or referred to URIs that are not relative URIs
> (i.e., those lacking a scheme specified).
>
> I had an exchange with Eran Hammer and Mark Nottingham.  I believe the
> intent of that language was not to require the above constrained syntax,
> but to require the standard URI syntax:
>
>      URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ]****
> ** **
> There are many ways that people do this, see:
>
> http://tantek.com/2011/238/b1/many-ways-slice-url-name-pieces****
>  ****
>
>
> Given that understanding, I believe we should remove the word "absolute"
> that appears in front of "URI" in the WebFinger spec.  Do others have an
> opinion on this?****
>
> ** **
> +1 on allowing relative URIs****
>  ****
>
>
> Paul
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> webfinger mailing list
> webfinger@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
> _______________________________________________
> webfinger mailing list
> webfinger@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> webfinger mailing list
> webfinger@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger
>
>


-- 
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
Chairman, OpenID Foundation
http://nat.sakimura.org/
@_nat_en