Re: [webfinger] Absolute URI vs URI

John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> Wed, 24 July 2013 17:19 UTC

Return-Path: <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.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 108C311E80DF for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:19:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 W7T5v+sIf6vI for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:19:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ye0-f173.google.com (mail-ye0-f173.google.com [209.85.213.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF6DD21F8F78 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:19:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ye0-f173.google.com with SMTP id m7so2974733yen.32 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:19:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to:x-mailer:x-gm-message-state; bh=rVsFBVByJoLoh0A4nqyQ+jjRtIBkRG2MuZh3rHiV6/k=; b=pvBU1M3USIL1uL1dwuUC+ERha72tzyBF1D1jnag2kWYB0xpDIeAdVnXPJ7uLLpZ4yA FbDeXvGVg4WAIhwbOpuuHxVHg/8Ts6n+ErEKeRchbst4GofktMeknecFtad3hqFonGyF t9myD5lbFhFFPYHC/v7eNcaNUK7HhHbumu0RRseGe5I0hqShuVdHVKLb19HKeiFzLQqc gHC5yI5U7o96MSCWjXZJMKVWt5SHlius0wQQJ2oMMgkEXIxssOq7O5mDG7ruYSKM0+au V262wRJNY6fj9AhB0TDkn5ByDJVSpdBZpzoI0/iDPABpFgacJPDjGLeaG9Ni/kNHPHzm uBhg==
X-Received: by 10.236.123.210 with SMTP id v58mr17981147yhh.64.1374686391998; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:19:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.216] (190-20-19-75.baf.movistar.cl. [190.20.19.75]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id m64sm53079196yho.25.2013.07.24.10.19.48 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:19:50 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8C29DE06-9094-4C58-86C6-BDE0EE191D89"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKaEYhJUG=RLqpvhze35_HAidNQbFjsWH=43X0cPFaCDZsZb_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 13:19:00 -0400
Message-Id: <979B65CA-EC87-4D98-9FA0-67822BEC0DFF@ve7jtb.com>
References: <028101ce869e$f02cddb0$d0869910$@packetizer.com> <CAKaEYhJwpR5b6jEcGYzAcWDJ0P1v6w2+L_h0Sh=m-ZOZA=ZHyw@mail.gmail.com> <0a1140f5-24d9-4be6-aab4-1ae6a3d63c0c@email.android.com> <CAKaEYh+iHNz_WawqRKakrHCdctC6_1V5COWYWQ4m9aC0+fh9WQ@mail.gmail.com> <032701ce86e5$27b2dff0$77189fd0$@packetizer.com> <CAKaEYhJUG=RLqpvhze35_HAidNQbFjsWH=43X0cPFaCDZsZb_w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlMZs6ksC8J+XUYdhOBqaXQFUtLHK6itqzBuiSkwWkndt1oALPxNQmAsW1tBohy6AqADNUp
Cc: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>, webfinger <webfinger@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 17:19:58 -0000

Relative URI are not useful without a base to be relative to.  Unless we say how to determine the base of a relative URI they should not be allowed.

I an imagine several ways to determine a base but without specifying it applications will not behave consistently.   The JRD is not a HTML document.

John B.

On 2013-07-24, at 12:58 PM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> On 22 July 2013 16:10, Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:
> Melvin,
> 
>  
> 
> It’s easy enough to replace strings in URIs should data need to be ported.  I suggest we remove the word “absolute” where we currently have “absolute URI” and then introduce a new paragraph in the terminology section as follows:
> 
>  
> 
> The use of URIs throughout this document refers to URIs following the syntax specified in Section 3 of RFC 3986.  Relative URIs, having syntax following that of Section 4.2 or RFC 3986, are not used with WebFinger.
> 
>  
> 
> Is that clear?
> 
> 
> Hi Paul, currently "Absolute URI" occurs only in section 4.4 (ie the description of JRD).  Certainly I think the 'absolute' should be removed in section 4.4.  
> 
> The RFC in essence describes two things, 
> 
> 1. the webfinger protocol
> 2. the JRD definition
> 
> This restriction on relative URIs applies to (2), rather than, the whole document, but as it happens that turns out to be the same thing
> 
> Side note: in other situations I like relative URIs because they can be moved from one location to another in a non-breaking way.  Say I have /about/ /photos/ /blog/ at one location, I can move them to another without having to worry too much.  Therefore, if JRD was ever used in a context outside of webfinger, that would be a slight advantage.
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Paul
> 
>  
> 
> From: Melvin Carvalho [mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 4:09 AM
> To: Paul E. Jones
> Cc: webfinger
> 
> 
> Subject: Re: [webfinger] Absolute URI vs URI
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> On 22 July 2013 09:06, Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:
> 
> In not suggesting we use or allow relative URIs. The immediate question would be "relative to what". I think the URIs should be absolute, but not following the syntax of "absolute-URI", but instead just following "URI".
> 
> Yes, that's a good question.  Generally relative URIs are relative to the document, but they need not be.  For example they could be relative by default to the [supposed] webfinger registry.  In JSON LD they have a @context variable which allows quite a bit of flexibility in this regard.  I'm unsure if relative URIs are considered a must in standards based serialization (I suspect not) but they have the advantage of slightly increased data portability.
> 
>  
> 
> Paul
> 
>  
> 
> From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> Sent: Mon Jul 22 02:46:25 EDT 2013
> 
> 
> To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
> 
> Cc: webfinger <webfinger@ietf.org>
> 
> 
> Subject: Re: [webfinger] Absolute URI vs URI
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> On 22 July 2013 07:47, Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:
> 
> 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 ]
> 
>  
> 
> There are many ways that people do this, see:
> 
> http://tantek.com/2011/238/b1/many-ways-slice-url-name-pieces
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
>  
> 
> +1 on allowing relative URIs
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> webfinger mailing list
> webfinger@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> webfinger mailing list
> webfinger@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger