Re: [webfinger] Registration of a URN for WebFinger Properties

"Paul E. Jones" <> Sun, 06 October 2013 15:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E42A21E80C3 for <>; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 08:16:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.165
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.165 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.433, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DtFQSiyWnDAO for <>; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 08:16:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16BC421E80C1 for <>; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 08:16:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r96FGdHE021106 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 6 Oct 2013 11:16:40 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=dublin; t=1381072600; bh=7lIdhZxhf7fKuwXABvnPlhW6YQRFCPMRxFvEnG9G4F0=; h=In-Reply-To:References:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Subject:From: Date:To:CC:Message-ID; b=WkOAGhDF3BVYo+bStpR8QY7gzmsdkV6vc7wN71WgBS3frli2N46VdVfX98vASI79E gt9hFW/qmF6/s/YLmb69YxggtAnvZkrDW69+qUqVLp34292/XUZusayN2k6FjwM+Me dmjMjg6hZ1/oeiWqSgtHDRgkFaxjhUI53j/yqoBA=
User-Agent: Kaiten Mail
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <em8fca55dc-a3ff-4231-8218-6c2221838850@sydney> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----X9OVXXT4Q9XW9Y4G3V26QFWB40NHT1"
From: "Paul E. Jones" <>
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2013 11:16:38 -0400
To: Melvin Carvalho <>
Message-ID: <>
Cc: webfinger <>
Subject: Re: [webfinger] Registration of a URN for WebFinger Properties
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: Sun, 06 Oct 2013 15:16:47 -0000

Yes, any URI can be used to identify a property. However, there has to be some agreed scheme and structure for things defined in the IETF. The point of the suggestion was to specify that.

We could use HTTP, but I've never seen that scheme used in IETF documents for this type of thing. I've seen URNs, though.


-------- Original Message --------
From: Melvin Carvalho <>
Sent: Sun Oct 06 09:19:42 EDT 2013
To: "Paul E. Jones" <>
Cc: webfinger <>
Subject: Re: [webfinger] Registration of a URN for WebFinger Properties

On 5 October 2013 03:22, Paul E. Jones <> wrote:

>  Folks,
> As you know, properties (both link and subject-specific properties) are
> identified via a URI.  For applications that are defined outside the IETF,
> those organizations are able to define any URI they wish to use.  For any
> we might define within the IETF, however, we need something.
> In anticipation of having such a need, I think we should create a document
> along the lines of RFC 6755 for WebFinger.  Specifically, we would define a
> URN sub-namespace as:
>    urn:ietf:params:webfinger
> One such potentially-useful subject-specific properties are "name", which
> would be the the subject's name intended for human consumption.  If you've
> queried my WebFinger server, you would know I currently advertise my name
> in English and Chinese.  For the "default" name, the URN might be:
>    urn:ietf:params:webfinger:name
> For language-specific variants, it might be:
>     urn:ietf:params:webfinger:name:zh-CN
> Defining the various properties and their meaning is an exercise for
> another day, but I hope you see the value in defining the URN sub-namespace.

Cant this be done using traditional HTTP keys.  The advantage being that
they can be systematically dereferenced using http GET, rather than having
to look it up in a central registry in a non machine readable way.  This is
what has been going on for 10+ years, with FOAF,, open graph
protocol and others.  Have I missed something?

> Thoughts?
> Paul
> _______________________________________________
> webfinger mailing list