IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [webfinger] Server Response language

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Wed, 10 July 2013 06:23 UTC

Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
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 0F62421F9D96 for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 23:23:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 XUWTjoh3dXYb for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 23:23:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.bortzmeyer.org (aetius.bortzmeyer.org [217.70.190.232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49AE821F9E88 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 23:23:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id AC08B3B62D; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 06:23:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail.sources.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0F8E5199251; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 08:21:07 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 08:21:06 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Will Norris <will@willnorris.com>
Message-ID: <20130710062106.GB15182@sources.org>
References: <044501cddece$fd045040$f70cf0c0$@packetizer.com> <CAHBU6itveCHU+M4A1msr_YQdW9JcrVNmfOmcjFwacLkE-pAYrA@mail.gmail.com> <048401cdded8$605d6c90$211845b0$@packetizer.com> <CAHBU6it45YFr6A+AUm3ub1roXqP99QG4jnEWpbvZew5ejhXt2Q@mail.gmail.com> <04c701cddedc$3f996000$becc2000$@packetizer.com> <20130708204135.GB30054@sources.org> <CAJqAn3zRNHSqAO3sWFkXZZMFxUNMdcW6LO=-ba0K0tokkz7rqg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJqAn3zRNHSqAO3sWFkXZZMFxUNMdcW6LO=-ba0K0tokkz7rqg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Transport: UUCP rules
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 7.1
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: webfinger@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [webfinger] Server Response language
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: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 06:23:18 -0000

On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 02:27:12PM -0700,
 Will Norris <will@willnorris.com> wrote 
 a message of 103 lines which said:

> In a webfinger query, the HTTP resource being requested is the full
> "/.well-known/webfinger?resource=acct:user@domain.com".  If the host
> doesn't have any metadata for "acct:user@domain.com", what else
> would they return, aside from a 404?

It is far from obvious to me. After all,
<https://willnorris.com/search/ghfdghgdghg> does not return a 404,
neither does
<http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=doesnotexistatall>
I understand the difference with Webfinger (both search engines try to
be helpful to humans and so produce some result explaining there was
no match) but, IMHO, it is a sufficient reason to be explicit in the
RFC.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email