Re: [webfinger] Proposed changes for WebFinger draft -18

Nick Jennings <nick@silverbucket.net> Thu, 22 August 2013 14:13 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@silverbucket.net>
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 3E18621F9E9C for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 07:13:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 XnKhdR7UURNa for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 07:13:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-f54.google.com (mail-la0-f54.google.com [209.85.215.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7950C21F8C72 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 07:13:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f54.google.com with SMTP id ea20so1469095lab.27 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 07:13:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=aqKtr3x6Z8QuAX1IsHS37zhsgIDJAvFfRHX8NPAgeMM=; b=cbOp/L/KilObyXVgdqNkIRacHOGe0Vv6cHZEIskcYI59dcVHskssBtmRPbOcQeyVx7 S9+XZTYOt1dCktkbPU2AyOvdke8e/hantq8Xx8sXNXUiYG+xba3PFfM3LLbYsAaGKKNP QcpAMV9ddtWjWxLGB41R5x1rhkf0aWxQMyGoVRylAUzLw4JvkL/fnpKQhJX8BN3eIAy7 YwQDNRXRM/PYubnAfII8A6JBj37A/qBhTp7jmYcaBYk72ilwkiUQ8Yrafo2ovA/iiCy2 bmmShxrsvATA+Z1XfMmFw76kYOv9eQnmapM5+8ZCopfTP3Ps6g5UxQPQe5cNRf35tPwJ KW3g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmLZxowrb41DcPdMmWBrXJxOptyusQNPVLylemrofwkTdLaoP3bI64+pP2LmVWahaFkcOxq
X-Received: by 10.152.115.176 with SMTP id jp16mr10891380lab.17.1377180782084; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 07:13:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x232.google.com (mail-la0-x232.google.com [2a00:1450:4010:c03::232]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id u18sm5073915lbp.4.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 22 Aug 2013 07:13:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f50.google.com with SMTP id ek20so1418598lab.23 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 07:13:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.37.103 with SMTP id x7mr2284809laj.28.1377180780733; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 07:13:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.42.109 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 07:13:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.42.109 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 07:13:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <068401ce9ede$b199d460$14cd7d20$@packetizer.com>
References: <068401ce9ede$b199d460$14cd7d20$@packetizer.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 16:13:00 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJL4WtZ2AUMb9aLPeVsTZwpqBPTCGwo-3yZLr5dGcAN_uRT6LQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nick Jennings <nick@silverbucket.net>
To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0160b5e43a2ce204e489e349
Cc: webfinger <webfinger@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [webfinger] Proposed changes for WebFinger draft -18
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: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:13:08 -0000

Looks good
 On Aug 22, 2013 4:24 AM, "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:

> Folks,
>
> As Gonzalo mentioned, the last blocking DISCUSS points were cleared for
> WebFinger.  However, a few additional changes were suggested for the
> WebFinger draft.  Some are just editorial and I do not think people will
> object, though you are certainly welcome to comment on any change once we
> post the new version.
>
> The proposed changes I think might be of concern, I want to mention now.
>
> In section 4, this change is suggested:
>
> OLD:
>    the host to which the WebFinger query is issued MUST be
> NEW:
>    the host to which the WebFinger query is issued SHOULD be
>
> In section 8.5, this change is suggested:
>
> OLD:
>     not fully understood SHOULD be ignored and MUST NOT cause
> NEW:
>     not fully understood SHOULD be ignored and SHOULD NOT cause
>
> Any objection to these MUSTs changing to SHOULD?
>
> Paul
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> webfinger mailing list
> webfinger@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger
>