+1 on the requirements. On 4/19/2012 12:48 PM, Mike Jones 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. -- 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
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
