[Openid-specs-ab] Please review this version of WebFinger

[Mike Jones]

Yes, this was a deliberate simplification for clients.  Templates were removed on purpose because they were duplicative of the functionality provided by the query parameters.

                                                            -- Mike

From: Justin Richer [mailto:jricher at mitre.org]
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 1:07 PM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Please review this version of WebFinger

Right, there are alternatives. I just wanted to make sure that the removal of this mechanism was deliberate and not an omission.

 -- Justin

On 11/26/2012 04:03 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
Or you can do the "redirect" with the "webfinger." DNS prefix.
________________________________
From: Mike Jones
Sent: 11/26/2012 1:00 PM
To: Justin Richer
Cc: openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Please review this version of WebFinger
Instead of static redirects or JSON-based redirects, this version of WebFinger supports 302 redirects, which I'm told can be done with a simple rule in Apache or IIS.

                                                                           -- Mike

From: Justin Richer [mailto:jricher at mitre.org]
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 7:27 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Please review this version of WebFinger

Should the "aliases" list always contain the subject if it's present? Can it?

>From my read, this is now missing the static redirect functionality that earlier versions of SWD and Webfinger made possible: drop a static file into the right place, it gets served back with a 200 and the client can follow the redirection. This might be accomplished somewhat cleanly by defining a "webfinger" rel/link pairing, right?

 -- Justin

On 11/22/2012 03:34 AM, Mike Jones wrote:
This version is JSON-only, no longer uses host-meta, uses query parameters instead of templates, and uses a domain prefix to enable hosted deployments.  Are there other changes we would want in this draft to use it for OpenID Connect?

                                                            -- Mike

From: apps-discuss-bounces at ietf.org<mailto:apps-discuss-bounces at ietf.org> [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 8:14 PM
To: apps-discuss at ietf.org<mailto:apps-discuss at ietf.org>; webfinger at googlegroups.com<mailto:webfinger at googlegroups.com>
Subject: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-appsawg-webfinger-04

Folks,

I just posted a new draft that takes into consideration the input I received on -03 and adds the "webfinger" subdomain that was discussed on the list this past week.  Specifically, here's what changed:

*        Mention in section 2 that WebFinger uses the "rel" attribute and provide a reference to the IANA registry for link relations

*        Deleted the second paragraph from  section 3 that expands on link relations

*        Changed the link relation value for "blog" to be just the token "blog"

*        Corrected a syntax error in the example in 4.1

*        Clarified in section 4.1 what is meant by a "valid alias"

*        Introduced a new section 4.2 that shows an example for OpenID Connect

*        Changed the rel types in 4.3 and 4.4 to be URI-based (on example.net)

*        Corrected syntax in 5.3 and added two clarifying sentences

*        Introduced a new section 5.5 that describes the "webfinger" subdomain

*        Changed the name of section 7

*        Added language to section 8 to support section 5.5

*        Added language to section 9 to support section 5.5

*        Spells out Mike's name as he prefers it

*        Added a couple of informational references

The new draft is here:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-webfinger-04

I think we're getting closer, though I know the "webfinger" subdomain might be a bit controversial.  I'm on the fence on this one, myself.  I can see the pros and cons of having it.  I'd prefer to stay out of the debate, though.  I'll put into the document whatever the group says to put into the documents :-)  That said, I think Mike made a valid argument with respect to the fact that some domain owners have no ability to do anything more than insert an A record for a subdomain.

I do want to highlight the fact that the current language says that if there is any response from a web server at the host, that means the host does have the capability of providing WF services and the "webfinger" subdomain should not be consulted.  Thus, the webfinger subdomain would only be consulted if there is no web server running at the host at all.  It's not a fallback for domain owners who have a web server, but just didn't install a WF server.  For that case, they should use 3xx redirection for hosting the WF server elsewhere.

Paul




_______________________________________________

Openid-specs-ab mailing list

Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net<mailto:Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>

http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20121127/21c07e16/attachment.html>