Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted

"Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> Sat, 17 August 2013 20:30 UTC

Return-Path: <paulej@packetizer.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 DC21711E8203 for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Aug 2013 13:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=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 gQLzOnRSpnqR for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Aug 2013 13:30:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dublin.packetizer.com (dublin.packetizer.com [75.101.130.125]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E5DB11E8129 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Aug 2013 13:30:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [100.118.102.42] (me54636d0.tmodns.net [208.54.70.229]) (authenticated bits=0) by dublin.packetizer.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r7HKU2d1024332 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 17 Aug 2013 16:30:06 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=packetizer.com; s=dublin; t=1376771407; bh=qjs9qnWg7fRp78ZEdKnZ/Uig3kBdsciFpZ1GrQBrSfU=; h=In-Reply-To:References:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Subject:From: Date:To:CC:Message-ID; b=F8KIrC5+qvUWJnol1DE4fPllbF3p3Ra9jfDEjJE4HYz4z/blwDFtkGbKB6YB4dK/y RanvUOADL1fBKBzORkNE8mNHmnQ5RgjvbA8rcIafu3alqKmNu7AAZKYsJDnSX6Z84a 2c0OVqKHtpZr8tBjcfeUay6Jn1padzC5WxhomT7k=
User-Agent: Kaiten Mail
In-Reply-To: <CAKaEYhK6JR5TW8JuRMwe-84MGXdeek7pgQZTC1CGB_8oyuct8Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <087c01ce951a$e32da1f0$a988e5d0$@packetizer.com> <CAKaEYh+i38utNp=ML3Qnut2OeoKPRPKhpquUOx5UUqp1Y+Pyiw@mail.gmail.com> <ac5fdc3a-01e3-4af6-a013-1b1a90b17a0e@email.android.com> <CAKaEYhK-AZ8D40p92aon1m338q4nHNegsx5PyK-dKJtyXVCjbQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436B7A8D1E@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <CAKaEYhK6JR5TW8JuRMwe-84MGXdeek7pgQZTC1CGB_8oyuct8Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----GPWXKK4CDHS38VEC2PZVKZ4KVKGD3Z"
From: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 16:29:57 -0400
To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <dc25a47b-6249-4165-86ec-762a24177d49@email.android.com>
Cc: webfinger <webfinger@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted
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: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 20:30:14 -0000

Why not have the client always offer items in the array in order? Any reason to randomly select items from the array?

Paul


-------- Original Message --------
From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Sent: Sat Aug 17 14:49:05 EDT 2013
To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>om>, webfinger <webfinger@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted

On 17 August 2013 20:45, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> wrote:

>  When used, the ordering can do good.  When not used, it does no harm.
> Please leave it in.
>

Mike, my question related to how the client can *know* when it's used and
when it's not used.  This seems unclear?


> ****
>
> ** **
>
>                                                             Thanks,****
>
>                                                             -- Mike****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* webfinger-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:webfinger-bounces@ietf.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Melvin Carvalho
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 17, 2013 11:40 AM
> *To:* Paul E. Jones
> *Cc:* webfinger
>
> *Subject:* Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On 17 August 2013 20:32, Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:****
>
> Melvin,****
>
> We have been asked about this before. If we leave it in, it meets the
> needs of some. I admit there might be cases where it's hard to control
> order, but if it matters, there is at least a way.****
>
> In my own implementation, I assign an integer value to each entry and sort
> on that.****
>
> I have no strong objection either way, but I do think it's good to have
> for those who care.****
>
> ** **
>
> I understand the trade offs.  However, I can see that this is useful in
> many cases, particularly this would work well for openid, but other use
> cases, eg to have a friends list, for something like a federated social
> web, would then be perhaps impractical with JRD (not the end of the world,
> though)****
>
>  ****
>
>  Paul****
>
> ** **
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Sat Aug 17 14:12:11 EDT 2013
> *To:* "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
> *Cc:* webfinger <webfinger@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On 9 August 2013 18:09, Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:****
>
> Folks,
>
> As we're trying to bring the WebFinger spec to a close, we published a new
> version -17 with some changes the WG might want to consider.
>
> Draft is:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-webfinger-17
>
> Those changes are:
>
> - Section 2, added a new last paragraph to explain what URI syntax we use
> in
> WebFinger
> - Corrected error in section 3.2 ("Host:" line in example and quotes around
> "3.2")
> - We remove the words "absolute URI" since it's really redundant
> - Added "query target" to 4.5 for clarity
> - Introduced a new section 8 that describes "WebFinger" applications.  This
> is a major new addition.
> - Added a new section 10.3 and 10.4 to address registration of link
> relation
> types and properties.  Link relations types already have a registry and we
> refer to existing procedures.  WebFinger properties did not have a
> registry,
> so we define one, primarily for the purpose of helping people avoid
> creating
> redundant definitions.
>
> If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to post to the
> list.****
>
>
> [[****
>
>    The order of elements in the "links" array indicates an order of****
>
>    preference.  Thus, if there are two or more link relations having the****
>
>    same "rel" value, the first link relation would indicate the user's****
>
>    preferred link.****
>
> ]]
>  ****
>
> Maybe remove this altogether, as I am unsure it can be guaranteed.****
>
> Case 1: Let's say I have a list of friends, how am I to determine as a
> server the preferred friends?  How am I to determine as a client whether
> the friends are ordered or not?****
>
> Case 2: Say I mash up data from two sources, how do I then order the
> combined list?****
>
> ** **
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> webfinger mailing list
> webfinger@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger****
>
>  ** **
>
>  ** **
>