IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [webfinger] Redefining "properties"

Will Norris <will@willnorris.com> Tue, 12 August 2014 03:40 UTC

Return-Path: <wnorris@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D30B1A01CA for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 20:40:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.423
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.423 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i474U838zuUO for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 20:40:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x22c.google.com (mail-lb0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 611321A01C3 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 20:40:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f172.google.com with SMTP id z11so6679412lbi.3 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 20:39:59 -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:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=fLEkPHfaElAKKVcrJCdxYvcSuaHhrWei1xzda+HHc+o=; b=ypVgS9bxnCtByd34Ar7e94muX1p2r/DopAx0NSPnwQPmeKZu8HDOZT7BhbFhxKkgrj dw5VzGCmw0rH8YM8dmOM4mOrQfDbSrbZa57QpK9MQ6+kJh0qwoZfnG0+5GaX2qiWe5eF TaVcgcL6BQoaHur95xKSwM1BMMKwBQwkGLlnhoPvZkauguEI03XKTruTR6FbVjGO5k7t OkfwRaRW3P3UJ5Q7bcndVUMly34xoIZNFfrCS3Ehsp76aVStGzZUTMjTEdonAoV4UXEB xvk/E0DDbLcGoN+u2uKtexhPLJMlScCezOJbcEtKNuj1zrjrHNNyKrJedJs6ZshRDPvz t7rQ==
X-Received: by 10.152.243.43 with SMTP id wv11mr1575479lac.52.1407814799557; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 20:39:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: wnorris@gmail.com
Received: by 10.152.124.200 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 20:39:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <em1c919200-3d1f-455f-bd2b-59a9ed03dd24@sydney>
References: <em1c919200-3d1f-455f-bd2b-59a9ed03dd24@sydney>
From: Will Norris <will@willnorris.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 20:39:19 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Lol8-hYUWGSjKDgHn_D8Vmx2U1E
Message-ID: <CAJqAn3ysg30qZndNpUvk=kUK0ZCcQrW652E_6-0-+q_ceFPHAA@mail.gmail.com>
To: webfinger@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113433ae098d1e0500666d5f"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webfinger/XzqvAvPTUj817ngwu7fFDAi18DM
Cc: "webfinger@ietf.org" <webfinger@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [webfinger] Redefining "properties"
X-BeenThere: webfinger@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 12 Aug 2014 03:40:03 -0000

what are the actual use cases prompting this?  If folks are trying to store
more complicated data, why is it not just a linked resource?

Personally, as a client author, I've always hated it when APIs have
polymorphic data types like this.


On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:29 PM, 'Paul E. Jones' via WebFinger <
webfinger@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>  Folks,
>
> I have been asked by multiple people for different purposes to see if it
> might be possible to redefine "properties" in the JSON Resource Descriptor.
>
> Per RFC 7033, "properties" is defined as an object that has zero or more
> name/value pairs whose values are strings or null.  The suggestion is that
> the values should be any valid JSON type.  Thus, a property might refer to
> a string (as is does now) or it might refer to an object or array.
>
> This change would break any parsers strictly implement definition of
> "properties".  So, there are two questions I want to present to those who
> are interested:
>
> 1) Would you be agreeable to change the current definition of
> "properties" to allow any value type?
> 2) If not, would be agreeable to introducing something like "properties"
> that essentially allows for the same and, if so, what should this new
> object be named?
>
> Personally, as much as I don't like breaking backward-compatibility, I'm
> favorable to redefining properties to accomodate what people want to do.
> I'm willing to work on an RFC 7033bis and/or a new RFC to update the JRD
> specification, if folks are agreeable to either (1) or (2).
>
> Paul
>
>
> --
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "WebFinger" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to webfinger+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email