There are two criteria that I would consider to be essential requirements for
any resulting general-purpose discovery specification:
1. Being able to always discover per-user information with a single GET
(minimizing user interface latency for mobile devices, etc.)
2. JSON should be required and it should be the only format required
(simplicity and ease of deployment/adoption)
SWD already meets those requirements. If the resulting spec meets those
requirements, it doesn't matter a lot whether we call it WebFinger or Simple
Web Discovery, but I believe that the requirements discussion is probably the
most productive one to be having at this point - not the starting point
document.
-- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: apps-discuss-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 9:32 AM
To: oauth@ietf.org WG; Apps Discuss
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [OAUTH-WG] Web Finger vs. Simple Web Discovery (SWD)
By all means people should correct me if they think I'm wrong about this, but
so far from monitoring the discussion there seems to be general support for
focusing on WebFinger and developing it to meet the needs of those who have
deployed SWD, versus the opposite.
Does anyone want to argue the opposite?
-MSK, appsawg co-chair
_______________________________________________
apps-discuss mailing list
apps-disc...@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
