I agree that redirects need to be followed, when used. -- Mike ________________________________ From: John Panzer Sent: 4/19/2012 7:04 PM To: Mike Jones Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy; oauth@ietf.org WG; Apps Discuss Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] [apps-discuss] Web Finger vs. Simple Web Discovery (SWD)
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Mike Jones <michael.jo...@microsoft.com<mailto: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.) Clarification: Does this requirement still allow HTTP redirects? (Meaning the server is in control of whether there is a single GET or not, basically, but can always ensure a single GET to minimize latency.) 2. JSON should be required and it should be the only format required (simplicity and ease of deployment/adoption) I think nobody would argue against JSON support (certainly not me), I think few would argue against making it required. I personally would be okay with actually standardizing on JSON as the only required format as it doesn't preclude anyone from supporting other formats if they wish (for legacy/etc. reasons). 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> [mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:apps-disc...@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
