[webfinger] Absolute URI vs URI

"Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> Mon, 22 July 2013 05:47 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 DDCFA21E809E for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 22:47:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.532
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.067, 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 VU8mvT7ktXSW for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 22:47:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dublin.packetizer.com (dublin.packetizer.com [75.101.130.125]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6D6521F9E3B for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 22:47:21 -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 r6M5lKDI025101 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 01:47:21 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=packetizer.com; s=dublin; t=1374472041; bh=0/YV3m7wJ9zTNr4CDkCbQWnD79hXqPN4TqBEGOVBDzY=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=tDd0HTbVUs76uECDl9g0YtZr7r2PnhaCbzBPBdLXBCQ1fHaxQx+UxRU+IgesyJ7db 3zwWA0Ej9ROr3Z6k7RkRF2L/GRl6X/VUJjMaBUofU8Ft3jSGGxTdYVXyrKW20XaPPk 3RNx1oJYX1+XmH8ZDbruz52QPi/emil5QbVBJtj8=
From: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
To: <webfinger@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 01:47:22 -0400
Message-ID: <028101ce869e$f02cddb0$d0869910$@packetizer.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: Ac6GnKy2JFrOlkfaRR6rWfzmXK/Deg==
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: [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: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 05:47:27 -0000

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 ]

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?

Paul