Currently, support for the "resource" parameter is optional, as per the
following (correct?):
Note that support for the "resource" parameter is optional, but
strongly RECOMMENDED for improved performance. If a server does not
implement the "resource" parameter, then the server's host metadata
processing logic remains unchanged from RFC 6415.
To truly support 1, this would need to be changed to REQUIRED, correct?
-- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:pau...@packetizer.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 8:16 PM
To: Mike Jones; 'Murray S. Kucherawy'; oauth@ietf.org; 'Apps Discuss'
Subject: RE: [apps-discuss] [OAUTH-WG] Web Finger vs. Simple Web Discovery (SWD)
Mike,
> 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.)
WF can do that. See:
$ curl -v https://packetizer.com/.well-known/\
host-meta.json?resource=acct:pau...@packetizer.com
> 2. JSON should be required and it should be the only format required
> (simplicity and ease of deployment/adoption)
See the above example. However, I also support XML with my server. It took me
less than 10 minutes to code up both XML and JSON representations. Once the
requested format is determined, the requested URI is determined, data is pulled
from the database, spitting out the desired format is trivial.
Note, and very important note: supporting both XML and JSON would only be a
server-side requirement. The client is at liberty to use the format it
prefers. I would agree that forcing a client to support both would be
unacceptable, but the server? Nothing to it.
> 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.
I believe WebFinger meets those requirements. We could debate whether XML
should be supported, but I'll note (again) that it is there in RFC 6415.
That document isn't all that old and, frankly, it concerns me that we would
have a strong preference for format A one week and then Format B the next.
We are where we are and I can see reason for asking for JSON, but no good
reason to say we should not allow XML (on the server side).
Paul
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
