Re: [webfinger] Absolute URI vs URI

John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> Wed, 24 July 2013 19:24 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 B967E11E8252 for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:24:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, 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 aA3oG5TWsncZ for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:24:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gg0-f178.google.com (mail-gg0-f178.google.com [209.85.161.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6225011E8144 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:23:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-gg0-f178.google.com with SMTP id l12so144237gge.37 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:23:47 -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=YXgHEJ+lsE9Z9WUuwJNb5z0Z1bYn0m4WzoN4B5UXIgE=; b=Rjw+b2kxIX4W8DzmijGmm8aUNk1qZcMa+w3/9woxLt73gmZ6KAqHerX4Eh03GhCdhX 1vHOvfN6QR736zf/0Z8ogA8zshStXVydYXFGbwEuYJVcHCwa+0DM1M7ohQIvNPT53Cs5 VDakFl7OkJST+re4wktUb9up051nDVShz2HoaSLha4CSv9oCFnmNFretTmV0pDehd5gy PQbhqBak9WW5GQrWMegK/GSQpGwxEaq4HNL7bJWxmYz8RUqHWn+spri1Zv68avQ6acvO ft+zM/FCfv6/4NsmGN/4vO90pK6HA8bdhsdg44fVE2Dyih6EdahtoPZwtObMANVk+ZKG Bulg==
X-Received: by 10.236.37.38 with SMTP id x26mr17654607yha.123.1374693827222; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:23:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.216] (190-20-17-87.baf.movistar.cl. [190.20.17.87]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id y70sm53711978yhe.15.2013.07.24.12.23.43 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:23:45 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5D26C9E4-9DDE-4C0E-817B-E50E3356FC63"; 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: <CAKaEYhJiUB6smXRivRbLShNw0Yq-XbPoUo73iEt76oLxKS5+pg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:22:55 -0400
Message-Id: <3C2FEB8C-8685-488D-94EB-1582E9B7BC8E@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> <979B65CA-EC87-4D98-9FA0-67822BEC0DFF@ve7jtb.com> <CAKaEYhJiUB6smXRivRbLShNw0Yq-XbPoUo73iEt76oLxKS5+pg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlUoeEc8Ub03wiQoSJx8IZD7tShnlr4iB5452G3MXpXG1SjQto1fnDuXmlppomfUnhkvySg
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 19:24:41 -0000

I don't personally think the additional flexibility is worth the interop issues likely to be created by different parsers of the JRD attempting to interpret the base.

John B.

On 2013-07-24, at 3:13 PM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> On 24 July 2013 19:19, John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> wrote:
> 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.
> 
> Sure.  I wasnt trying to imply the JRD was the same as an HTML document.  Relative URIs, can be used in many contexts such as html/json/xml do indeed require a base.  I think the following text from RFC 3986, "5.1.  Establishing a Base URI" would be relevant here, and it's referred to by JSON LD too
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-5.1
>  
> 
> 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
> 
>