IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [webfinger] Server Response language

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Mon, 08 July 2013 20:43 UTC

Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
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 4DB4C21F9DFB for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 13:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Be5FzVi8PUsU for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 13:43:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.bortzmeyer.org (aetius.bortzmeyer.org [IPv6:2001:4b98:dc0:41:216:3eff:fece:1902]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC6F021F9DF1 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 13:43:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id 539423B5B6; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 20:43:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail.sources.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A9072C9AFC; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 22:41:35 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 22:41:35 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: webfinger@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20130708204135.GB30054@sources.org>
References: <044501cddece$fd045040$f70cf0c0$@packetizer.com> <CAHBU6itveCHU+M4A1msr_YQdW9JcrVNmfOmcjFwacLkE-pAYrA@mail.gmail.com> <048401cdded8$605d6c90$211845b0$@packetizer.com> <CAHBU6it45YFr6A+AUm3ub1roXqP99QG4jnEWpbvZew5ejhXt2Q@mail.gmail.com> <04c701cddedc$3f996000$becc2000$@packetizer.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <04c701cddedc$3f996000$becc2000$@packetizer.com>
X-Transport: UUCP rules
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 7.1
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [webfinger] Server Response language
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, 08 Jul 2013 20:43:08 -0000

On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 01:02:59PM -0500,
 Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote 
 a message of 383 lines which said:

> But there server did find something.  It found the "webfinger"
> resource.  The software that responds to the query has to then
> decided what it returns.  It might be logical to some, but I'd argue
> we need to state this to avoid confusion.

It seems that this thread died without a conclusion? I see nothing in
-15 about the server's return code (all examples are success, with a
200 code). Tim Bray claimed that it should simply follow the standard
rules of HTTP but, as far as I know, there are no standard rules when
/.well-known/webfinger is found *but* the resource is not. 200? 401?
404?

GET /.well-known/webfinger?resource=acct%3ADOESNOTEXIST%40example.com HTTP/1.1

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email