Re: [webfinger] Absolute URI vs URI

Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> Mon, 22 July 2013 06:46 UTC

Return-Path: <melvincarvalho@gmail.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 04AE521F9655 for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 23:46:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 cpfyUM-yhwPk for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 23:46:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x235.google.com (mail-la0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D97BF21E8063 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 23:46:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f53.google.com with SMTP id fj20so3137441lab.26 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 23:46:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=qAm1uFyI+MW0Ye4kR7pOeG2W9qdsqIzcd4UQfTHFCXE=; b=b+TmB2rEOCo6QQQvZYQSnHfv1KljE+IvW4YLOYIEYkLeP+qAsjaGpnr9iaHVSGkRt/ pl/26gvdBgGVY7yh6sr867+pylSCAvuZ3OdRcFprRcfqYWw4tqPv9SjJOidl1ndJzZ+N B+QW3gBgpvcoMOcEXv8l94q6dpukN8DThqlYpyDS9j8jqttwHISzp8/0RmoWV1KQQfCu 3R5/fv8eXOa5KGhQpY86MOC9dGfFT4bPavkm679r76fKsDkvemVXhKam2c0mYoLlJdFS kC7ZmrXPsHcgTQYMXRih2M9lZpl1PTBfPkcckNhca5+YXe18BRmNAVriadehQprrPxOd ddCA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.150.231 with SMTP id ul7mr11859865lbb.92.1374475585639; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 23:46:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.59.193 with HTTP; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 23:46:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <028101ce869e$f02cddb0$d0869910$@packetizer.com>
References: <028101ce869e$f02cddb0$d0869910$@packetizer.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 08:46:25 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhJwpR5b6jEcGYzAcWDJ0P1v6w2+L_h0Sh=m-ZOZA=ZHyw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3434c208db7a04e2140951
Cc: webfinger <webfinger@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [webfinger] Absolute URI vs URI
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 06:46:38 -0000

On 22 July 2013 07:47, Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:

> Folks,
>
> One of the requirements in the JRD spec is that certain URIs (e.g., those
> identifying link relation types and properties) be "absolute URIs".  This
> term has been a point of confusion, since RFC 3986 uses the term to have a
> concrete meaning, namely this:
>
>      absolute-URI  = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ]
>
> And the term is used, because that's the term used in the OASIS XRD
> specification.  However, it was not clear to me whether that referred to
> the
> above (which I assumed) or referred to URIs that are not relative URIs
> (i.e., those lacking a scheme specified).
>
> I had an exchange with Eran Hammer and Mark Nottingham.  I believe the
> intent of that language was not to require the above constrained syntax,
> but to require the standard URI syntax:
>
>      URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ]
>

There are many ways that people do this, see:

http://tantek.com/2011/238/b1/many-ways-slice-url-name-pieces


>
> Given that understanding, I believe we should remove the word "absolute"
> that appears in front of "URI" in the WebFinger spec.  Do others have an
> opinion on this?
>

+1 on allowing relative URIs


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