Re: [webfinger] Revised WebFinger spec (draft -15)

"Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> Mon, 08 July 2013 20:57 UTC

From: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
To: 'Stephane Bortzmeyer' <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
References: <0a8601ce7870$2ceef090$86ccd1b0$@packetizer.com> <20130708202625.GA30054@sources.org>
In-Reply-To: <20130708202625.GA30054@sources.org>
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 16:57:18 -0400
Message-ID: <031001ce7c1d$bbd271f0$337755d0$@packetizer.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-us
Thread-Index: AQK+xgiCySGmeoDt4xMNPiAxDqNw4QGl3zfVl21/WvA=
Cc: webfinger@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [webfinger] Revised WebFinger spec (draft -15)
Precedence: list

Stephane,

> Editorial note:
> 
> > suppose a mail client was configured to automatically perform a
> > WebFinger query as discussed in the example in Section 3.1.
> 
> Should probably be deleted since it refers to an example which no
> longer exists.

Should we delete the entire paragraph or just the words "as discussed in the
example in Section 3.1".  I would assume the words of caution related to
automated processing might still be appreciated.

I also noted in section 4.3, there is a reference to a deleted example, too.
This smaller example seems it is OK, but I'll remove the reference and
cleanup the text a little.

Paul

[webfinger] Revised WebFinger spec (draft -15) Paul E. Jones
Re: [webfinger] Revised WebFinger spec (draft -15) Barry Leiba
Re: [webfinger] Revised WebFinger spec (draft -15) Paul E. Jones
Re: [webfinger] Revised WebFinger spec (draft -15) Stephane Bortzmeyer
Re: [webfinger] Revised WebFinger spec (draft -15) Paul E. Jones