Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted

Mike Jones <> Mon, 19 August 2013 17:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8C4111E8119 for <>; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 10:07:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.516
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.082, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R+ZvO91+QMzw for <>; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 10:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EA6411E8108 for <>; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 10:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.745.25; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 16:52:31 +0000
Received: from (2a01:111:f400:7c0c::25) by (2a01:111:e400:879::24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.745.25 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 16:52:31 +0000
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.745.15 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 16:52:30 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0136.001; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 16:51:01 +0000
From: Mike Jones <>
To: Melvin Carvalho <>, "Paul E. Jones" <>
Thread-Topic: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 16:51:01 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <087c01ce951a$e32da1f0$a988e5d0$> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <028601ce9cf7$74da6cd0$5e8f4670$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436B7C3047TK5EX14MBXC283r_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:; CTRY:US; IPV:CAL; IPV:NLI; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(52044002)(377454003)(25584003)(24454002)(199002)(164054003)(189002)(46102001)(512954002)(80022001)(66066001)(81342001)(65816001)(47736001)(81542001)(50986001)(49866001)(77096001)(33656001)(69226001)(56816003)(71186001)(4396001)(47976001)(81816001)(76786001)(63696002)(76796001)(20776003)(74706001)(77982001)(59766001)(19580405001)(54356001)(55846006)(53806001)(74366001)(56776001)(54316002)(74876001)(81686001)(76482001)(31966008)(74662001)(44976005)(15202345003)(74502001)(47446002)(79102001)(19580385001)(83322001)(83072001)(80976001)(6806004)(19300405004)(51856001)(16236675002)(19580395003); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR03MB019;; CLIP:; RD:InfoDomainNonexistent; A:1; MX:1; LANG:;
X-O365ENT-EOP-Header: Message processed by - O365_ENT: Allow from ranges (Engineering ONLY)
X-Forefront-PRVS: 09435FCA72
X-MS-Exchange-CrossPremises-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossPremises-AVStamp-Service: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossPremises-SCL: 1
X-MS-Exchange-CrossPremises-Antispam-ScanContext: DIR:Originating; SFV:NSPM; SKIP:0;
X-MS-Exchange-CrossPremises-Processed-By-Journaling: Journal Agent
Cc: Bob Wyman <>, webfinger <>
Subject: Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of the Webfinger protocol proposal in the Applications Area <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:07:40 -0000

I'm not OK making this change.  Expressing an order of preference is useful semantics and we shouldn't remove it.  No the handling of it isn't guaranteed (it's a *preference*, not a hard requirement), but it's still useful as-is.

We're resolving the last IESG comments now.  It seems pretty late to be asking for non-essential changes - especially when they degrade functionality.

                                                                -- Mike

From: Melvin Carvalho []
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 9:41 AM
To: Paul E. Jones
Cc: Bob Wyman; Mike Jones; webfinger
Subject: Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted

On 19 August 2013 18:16, Paul E. Jones <<>> wrote:

I'm OK with that change, if we're permitted to make this type of change now.

I guess if it's too late it's not the end of the world.
I do think Bob's change is an improvement.  But I still dont quite understand how the client is supposed to know if it's dealing with an ordered list or an unordered list.


From:<> [<>] On Behalf Of Bob Wyman
Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2013 5:05 PM
To: Paul E. Jones
Cc: Melvin Carvalho; Mike Jones; webfinger

Subject: Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted

I would prefer if the wording didn't require that order of listing is required to indicate a necessary order of preference. Thus, I suggest the following wording:

The order of elements in the "links" array MAY be read as indicating an order of preference.

The idea is to permit readers to infer order of preference, and to allow writers to express that order, without requiring that a preferred order be determined or expressed. Where there is no preferred order, there will be no harm. Where there is a preferred order, the right thing will happen.

bob wyman

On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Paul E. Jones <<>> wrote:

Why not have the client always offer items in the array in order? Any reason to randomly select items from the array?


From: Melvin Carvalho <<>>
Sent: Sat Aug 17 14:49:05 EDT 2013
To: Mike Jones <<>>
Cc: "Paul E. Jones" <<>>, webfinger <<>>

Subject: Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted

On 17 August 2013 20:45, Mike Jones <<>> wrote:
When used, the ordering can do good.  When not used, it does no harm.  Please leave it in.

Mike, my question related to how the client can *know* when it's used and when it's not used.  This seems unclear?

                                                            -- Mike

From:<> [<>] On Behalf Of Melvin Carvalho
Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2013 11:40 AM
To: Paul E. Jones
Cc: webfinger

Subject: Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted

On 17 August 2013 20:32, Paul E. Jones <<>> wrote:


We have been asked about this before. If we leave it in, it meets the needs of some. I admit there might be cases where it's hard to control order, but if it matters, there is at least a way.

In my own implementation, I assign an integer value to each entry and sort on that.

I have no strong objection either way, but I do think it's good to have for those who care.

I understand the trade offs.  However, I can see that this is useful in many cases, particularly this would work well for openid, but other use cases, eg to have a friends list, for something like a federated social web, would then be perhaps impractical with JRD (not the end of the world, though)


From: Melvin Carvalho <<>>
Sent: Sat Aug 17 14:12:11 EDT 2013
To: "Paul E. Jones" <<>>
Cc: webfinger <<>>
Subject: Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted

On 9 August 2013 18:09, Paul E. Jones <<>> wrote:

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:

Those changes are:

- Section 2, added a new last paragraph to explain what URI syntax we use in
- Corrected error in section 3.2 ("Host:" line in example and quotes around
- 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.


   The order of elements in the "links" array indicates an order of

   preference.  Thus, if there are two or more link relations having the

   same "rel" value, the first link relation would indicate the user's

   preferred link.

Maybe remove this altogether, as I am unsure it can be guaranteed.
Case 1: Let's say I have a list of friends, how am I to determine as a server the preferred friends?  How am I to determine as a client whether the friends are ordered or not?
Case 2: Say I mash up data from two sources, how do I then order the combined list?


webfinger mailing list<>

webfinger mailing list<>