Re: [webfinger] Webfinger and URI vs IRI

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Mon, 22 July 2013 20:30 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@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 4B8B221F8CB0 for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 13:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 wmSSFDJbqjrT for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 13:30:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vc0-x22d.google.com (mail-vc0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0D8321F8C7C for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 13:30:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vc0-f173.google.com with SMTP id hz10so1422856vcb.4 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 13:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=vV0Ra7gvZygzX27pcPrYQ4Tsq51GuVVRJlAAcBpG2z0=; b=gCVEAXRMirGRq7eWmWJbhzqCL5SNgHCckE9ypKUIpvhPvlu2dLx+ZdG80RkTLQgeFe AAb+B9bPFow/oZfOZW/0vWli1ngfQ7XzDZdt1u69Ka5HUSRSB9HKMUPCYZipjsH6TZLQ vOK+9StznVStCXz4aYYDOFxdpc9JhJzoy/4dySBmX7/PAl5tLwsmJz3tC1+zCHSw3fEr 4Sm24S6gXjD42pSSQKuDWmH9ZSeoiJSN/m+2iNxnxn/LImxhNo/3R/ehQ9pF7HYsFXbV 3snLiIPCu16vUsOE+LZvEHgsEpnelWqTu6w+mAvkE2fatuKutIqunX13xMGfkf5nZdRy eUow==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.220.181.69 with SMTP id bx5mr9782994vcb.71.1374525005236; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 13:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: by 10.58.137.227 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 13:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.58.137.227 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 13:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <028301ce869f$596c12a0$0c4437e0$@packetizer.com>
References: <028301ce869f$596c12a0$0c4437e0$@packetizer.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 16:30:05 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Jrb9rYoxnEgdEMAuDewWvE3bnss
Message-ID: <CAC4RtVCvfzy8m2Tx8fsjoCgstPkf-B5PAkAXumDLqKqhh6ETnA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1132f30cac0eec04e21f8ac0
Cc: webfinger@ietf.org, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Martin_J=2E_D=FCrst?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Subject: Re: [webfinger] Webfinger and URI vs IRI
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 20:30:08 -0000

I believe WF should only use URIs.  I believe that IRIs are a presentation
layer thing.

Barry
On Jul 22, 2013 1:50 AM, "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:

> Folks,
>
> The term URI is used almost exclusively in the WebFinger spec, with IRI
> appearing only twice (outside of the reference).  This is because URI is
> used in RFC 6415 almost exclusively.  However, RFC 5988 uses the term IRI
> in
> most of the text.  That said, RFC 5988 also says things like the "target
> IRI
> as a URI-Reference" ...
>
> I feel like we have a terminology problem and it's not quite clear to me
> how
> to fix it.  Should we change every instance of URI to IRI?  Should URI be
> used in most places, with IRI discussed specifically somewhere?  Or is
> there
> even a need to mention IRI given that IRIs can be converted to URIs?
>
> I would really like to get this right, but it definitely does not look
> right
> now with only one normative use of IRI in section 4.4.4.  Who can help me
> with this?
>
> Paul
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> webfinger mailing list
> webfinger@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger
>