Re: [webfinger] Webfinger and URI vs IRI

Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> Mon, 22 July 2013 20:36 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Jones@microsoft.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 6BE8411E814E for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 13:36:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 f2RzQUjpKgez for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 13:36:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tx2outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (tx2ehsobe003.messaging.microsoft.com [65.55.88.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AB1211E8123 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 13:36:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail57-tx2-R.bigfish.com (10.9.14.238) by TX2EHSOBE001.bigfish.com (10.9.40.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 20:36:48 +0000
Received: from mail57-tx2 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail57-tx2-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20C9416097B; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 20:36:48 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.8; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:TK5EX14HUBC107.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:autodiscover.service.exchange.microsoft.com; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -22
X-BigFish: VS-22(zz98dI9371Ic89bhc85dhzz1f42h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzz1d7338h1de098h1033IL17326ah18c673h1de097h1de096h8275bh8275dhz2fh2a8h668h839hd25hf0ah1288h12a5h12bdh137ah1441h1504h1537h153bh15d0h162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1b0ah1bceh1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1dfeh1dffh1e1dh1155h)
Received-SPF: pass (mail57-tx2: domain of microsoft.com designates 131.107.125.8 as permitted sender) client-ip=131.107.125.8; envelope-from=Michael.Jones@microsoft.com; helo=TK5EX14HUBC107.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ; icrosoft.com ;
Received: from mail57-tx2 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail57-tx2 (MessageSwitch) id 1374525406706432_14154; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 20:36:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from TX2EHSMHS020.bigfish.com (unknown [10.9.14.227]) by mail57-tx2.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A81AB2A0056; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 20:36:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC107.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.8) by TX2EHSMHS020.bigfish.com (10.9.99.120) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 20:36:46 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.1.38]) by TK5EX14HUBC107.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.80.67]) with mapi id 14.03.0136.001; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 20:35:42 +0000
From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
Thread-Topic: [webfinger] Webfinger and URI vs IRI
Thread-Index: Ac6GnLRN4Jk8X/POQYqp7F2LyuxBnQAfYuGAAAAxCDA=
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 20:35:41 +0000
Message-ID: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436B6FF6C8@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <028301ce869f$596c12a0$0c4437e0$@packetizer.com> <CAC4RtVCvfzy8m2Tx8fsjoCgstPkf-B5PAkAXumDLqKqhh6ETnA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVCvfzy8m2Tx8fsjoCgstPkf-B5PAkAXumDLqKqhh6ETnA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.74]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436B6FF6C8TK5EX14MBXC284r_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
Cc: "webfinger@ietf.org" <webfinger@ietf.org>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Martin_J=2E_D=FCrst?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Subject: Re: [webfinger] Webfinger and URI vs IRI
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 20:36:54 -0000

+1

From: webfinger-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:webfinger-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 1:30 PM
To: Paul E. Jones
Cc: webfinger@ietf.org; Martin J. Dürst
Subject: Re: [webfinger] Webfinger and URI vs IRI


I believe WF should only use URIs.  I believe that IRIs are a presentation layer thing.

Barry
On Jul 22, 2013 1:50 AM, "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com<mailto:paulej@packetizer.com>> wrote:
Folks,

The term URI is used almost exclusively in the WebFinger spec, with IRI
appearing only twice (outside of the reference).  This is because URI is
used in RFC 6415 almost exclusively.  However, RFC 5988 uses the term IRI in
most of the text.  That said, RFC 5988 also says things like the "target IRI
as a URI-Reference" ...

I feel like we have a terminology problem and it's not quite clear to me how
to fix it.  Should we change every instance of URI to IRI?  Should URI be
used in most places, with IRI discussed specifically somewhere?  Or is there
even a need to mention IRI given that IRIs can be converted to URIs?

I would really like to get this right, but it definitely does not look right
now with only one normative use of IRI in section 4.4.4.  Who can help me
with this?

Paul


_______________________________________________
webfinger mailing list
webfinger@ietf.org<mailto:webfinger@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger