Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted

Gonzalo Salgueiro <gsalguei@cisco.com> Wed, 21 August 2013 23:38 UTC

Return-Path: <gsalguei@cisco.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 BEB6521F95DD for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:38:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 yddyduBSYLNF for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:38:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 594C221F93C4 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:38:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from chook.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r7LNcBF7023632 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 01:38:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from rtp-gsalguei-8917.cisco.com (rtp-gsalguei-8917.cisco.com [10.116.132.56]) by chook.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r7LNcAkx009859 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 19:38:10 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Gonzalo Salgueiro <gsalguei@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <087c01ce951a$e32da1f0$a988e5d0$@packetizer.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 19:38:10 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CC2BD0D4-5122-4846-9F1C-06E7E2C8A1A6@cisco.com>
References: <087c01ce951a$e32da1f0$a988e5d0$@packetizer.com>
To: webfinger <webfinger@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Subject: Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted
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, 21 Aug 2013 23:38:18 -0000

Folks - 

The last DISCUSS has finally been cleared!! A new version (-18) will be published in the next few days addressing the final minor edits that came from this final round of IESG review.  This is a final plea to please review the document (particularly the new Section 8 and sub-sections 10.3 and 10.4) to ensure that you agree with us that everything is in order and the document is in fact ready to go to the RFC Editor for publication.

As we get through this final hurdle, I'm reminded to thank all of you for your continued dedication throughout this long (and sometimes arduous) journey. 

Gonzalo




On Aug 9, 2013, at 12:09 PM, Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:

> Folks,
> 
> As we're trying to bring the WebFinger spec to a close, we published a new
> version -17 with some changes the WG might want to consider.
> 
> Draft is:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-webfinger-17
> 
> Those changes are:
> 
> - Section 2, added a new last paragraph to explain what URI syntax we use in
> WebFinger
> - Corrected error in section 3.2 ("Host:" line in example and quotes around
> "3.2")
> - We remove the words "absolute URI" since it's really redundant
> - Added "query target" to 4.5 for clarity
> - Introduced a new section 8 that describes "WebFinger" applications.  This
> is a major new addition.
> - Added a new section 10.3 and 10.4 to address registration of link relation
> types and properties.  Link relations types already have a registry and we
> refer to existing procedures.  WebFinger properties did not have a registry,
> so we define one, primarily for the purpose of helping people avoid creating
> redundant definitions.
> 
> If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to post to the list.
> 
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> webfinger mailing list
> webfinger@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger
>