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>, 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**** > > ** ** > > ** ** >
- Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted Melvin Carvalho
- Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted Paul E. Jones
- [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted Paul E. Jones
- Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted Melvin Carvalho
- Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted Mike Jones
- Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted Melvin Carvalho
- Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted Paul E. Jones
- Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted Bob Wyman
- Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted Melvin Carvalho
- Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted Paul E. Jones
- Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted Nick Jennings
- Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted Melvin Carvalho
- Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted Paul E. Jones
- Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted Mike Jones
- Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted Melvin Carvalho
- Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted Paul E. Jones
- Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted Melvin Carvalho
- Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted Bill Mills
- Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted Gonzalo Salgueiro