[webfinger] Webfinger and URI vs IRI

"Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> Mon, 22 July 2013 05:50 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 533D621F9EB8 for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 22:50:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.535
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.535 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.064, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 hwVr6yKdyNWu for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 22:50:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dublin.packetizer.com (dublin.packetizer.com [75.101.130.125]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14A2121F9622 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 22:50:19 -0700 (PDT)
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 r6M5oGDw025291 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 22 Jul 2013 01:50:17 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=packetizer.com; s=dublin; t=1374472217; bh=kN5gEFuiroMJhcJmcK3RgCacccCfsyLHpPAWXZfWSdA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=cqTvyBfzLO80fRGS5IHITRp95BDcR8nINvDToVC4G5OaybMBnf/blzoddVmNVNuKv SnC4bql9R5xYm0uDO0IE02wiyKGC71sii64i0ZSjR7yxv9SWniOIXJumlHvRPK73qb mU8k+fS7HC/wMPNU4HBBPXCREwvJ7PkF0n1dkAS0=
From: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
To: <webfinger@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 01:50:18 -0400
Message-ID: <028301ce869f$596c12a0$0c4437e0$@packetizer.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: Ac6GnLRN4Jk8X/POQYqp7F2LyuxBnQ==
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_J._D=FCrst=22?=" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Subject: [webfinger] Webfinger and URI vs IRI
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: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 05:50:24 -0000

Folks,

The term URI is used almost exclusively in the WebFinger spec, with IRI
appearing only twice (outside of the reference).  This is because URI is
used in RFC 6415 almost exclusively.  However, RFC 5988 uses the term IRI in
most of the text.  That said, RFC 5988 also says things like the "target IRI
as a URI-Reference" ...

I feel like we have a terminology problem and it's not quite clear to me how
to fix it.  Should we change every instance of URI to IRI?  Should URI be
used in most places, with IRI discussed specifically somewhere?  Or is there
even a need to mention IRI given that IRIs can be converted to URIs?

I would really like to get this right, but it definitely does not look right
now with only one normative use of IRI in section 4.4.4.  Who can help me
with this?

Paul