#1 as John Panzer identified, allowing the server to control its deployment and supporting HTTP redirects is critical. #2 JSON is better, which one is required is less of on issue but more of a best practices item.
I'll add: * Highly cachable * Optimize for large providers, reducing the need to make repeated requests when the information is mostly following a template on the server side * Ability to provide discovery on resources, not users or any other subset (emails, etc.) * Security agnostic - leave it to HTTP, TLS, OAuth, etc. * HTTP compliant - doesn't invent it's own rediretion menthods or custom headers, etc. EH > -----Original Message----- > From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Mike Jones > Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 9:49 AM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy; oauth@ietf.org WG; Apps Discuss > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] [apps-discuss] Web Finger vs. Simple Web > Discovery (SWD) > > 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
