On 19 April 2012 18:48, Mike Jones <michael.jo...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
+1
-- 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
