Re: [webfinger] Absolute URI vs URI

John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> Mon, 22 July 2013 14:34 UTC

Return-Path: <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.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 D7B4211E80F2 for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 07:34:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.528
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.528 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.070, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 n00DtlVA25la for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 07:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gg0-f175.google.com (mail-gg0-f175.google.com [209.85.161.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C872421F849C for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 07:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-gg0-f175.google.com with SMTP id q1so2065564ggm.6 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 07:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to:x-mailer:x-gm-message-state; bh=3FcfSoQb6OE4SkUSO/otZ7TRLHtQslomODXnnTfp0WI=; b=oF8D2Nyo9/fEzUjHxu8FALXX5iLPv8RMQRoPXZ4DmpTbUvy0IQBGx3x/tYLG7v+Sia n6mobpAokU3wuk6IfLfJF8+a0BKiutWC3jbqH5BdRXfadDwZvJK9r10i1ZehTMkj8vD0 88Xre/7UBRIfFM65DUh1U6XPBouO4xgeXt3Hs9hcqqVu0fEgiXlRz/whVs664TbwnlJs uFmO+xA87D39JyGvb4AmyLMQfHruhgdb1lwyfVDukzZkbv2jYyE/vb5bh7LwtQ2riQXN +cmg28d/eIAfzImZyrKoOsjH1pMU/h8Fd6Cr4yPa0rnzHbSAayF765rrncAvfcTTShDr /1ZA==
X-Received: by 10.236.53.6 with SMTP id f6mr13297805yhc.222.1374503641005; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 07:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.216] (190-20-16-147.baf.movistar.cl. [190.20.16.147]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id f67sm39358460yhh.9.2013.07.22.07.33.58 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 22 Jul 2013 07:33:59 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A1751246-5421-46C3-94ED-BB90C8BE5379"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
In-Reply-To: <032701ce86e5$27b2dff0$77189fd0$@packetizer.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 10:33:25 -0400
Message-Id: <9AA3BB39-01F1-4E73-99BC-C7ECD0D839C7@ve7jtb.com>
References: <028101ce869e$f02cddb0$d0869910$@packetizer.com> <CAKaEYhJwpR5b6jEcGYzAcWDJ0P1v6w2+L_h0Sh=m-ZOZA=ZHyw@mail.gmail.com> <0a1140f5-24d9-4be6-aab4-1ae6a3d63c0c@email.android.com> <CAKaEYh+iHNz_WawqRKakrHCdctC6_1V5COWYWQ4m9aC0+fh9WQ@mail.gmail.com> <032701ce86e5$27b2dff0$77189fd0$@packetizer.com>
To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQka4tD5kauC+NhMZ15rYQexUDCYjPE19EeG4bHgBuSOXxwXPR9XywSqsg4eQV8KuKJPzv6m
Cc: 'webfinger' <webfinger@ietf.org>, 'Melvin Carvalho' <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
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 14:34:28 -0000

Yes +1.

On 2013-07-22, at 10:10 AM, "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:

> Melvin,
>  
> It’s easy enough to replace strings in URIs should data need to be ported.  I suggest we remove the word “absolute” where we currently have “absolute URI” and then introduce a new paragraph in the terminology section as follows:
>  
> The use of URIs throughout this document refers to URIs following the syntax specified in Section 3 of RFC 3986.  Relative URIs, having syntax following that of Section 4.2 or RFC 3986, are not used with WebFinger.
>  
> Is that clear?
>  
> Paul
>  
> From: Melvin Carvalho [mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 4:09 AM
> To: Paul E. Jones
> Cc: webfinger
> Subject: Re: [webfinger] Absolute URI vs URI
>  
>  
>  
> 
> On 22 July 2013 09:06, Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:
> In not suggesting we use or allow relative URIs. The immediate question would be "relative to what". I think the URIs should be absolute, but not following the syntax of "absolute-URI", but instead just following "URI".
> 
> Yes, that's a good question.  Generally relative URIs are relative to the document, but they need not be.  For example they could be relative by default to the [supposed] webfinger registry.  In JSON LD they have a @context variable which allows quite a bit of flexibility in this regard.  I'm unsure if relative URIs are considered a must in standards based serialization (I suspect not) but they have the advantage of slightly increased data portability.
>  
> Paul
> 
>  
> 
> From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> Sent: Mon Jul 22 02:46:25 EDT 2013
> 
> To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
> Cc: webfinger <webfinger@ietf.org>
> 
> Subject: Re: [webfinger] Absolute URI vs URI
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 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
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> webfinger mailing list
> webfinger@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger