Subject: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02)

From: "Paul E. Jones" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 21:49:38 -0400

Folks,

I published a revised version of the Webfinger specification based on
feedback I've received so far that seems to  have general agreement.  As
requested, I added a change log at the end of the document that I hope will
help.  The draft is here:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-appsawg-webfinger-02

The "diff" tool on that page allows you to quickly see exactly what changed.

Paul

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:35:14 +0000

To the working group,

This has been hovering outside APPSAWG for two meetings now.  Is APPSAWG the right place to process it?  That is, should we bring it in as a working group document?  Or would it be better done through the ISE, or perhaps in some other working group?

-MSK

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 6:50 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02)

Folks,

I published a revised version of the Webfinger specification based on feedback I've received so far that seems to  have general agreement.  As requested, I added a change log at the end of the document that I hope will help.  The draft is here:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-appsawg-webfinger-02

Paul

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:56:53 +0000

Having talked with Barry now, an amended question:

Would this work better fit in another working group like OAuth (which has its own interest and concerns in webfinger), or perhaps in its own working group?  It may well be that it's too big to fit in APPSAWG's charter for smaller work items.

-MSK

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 4:35 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02)

To the working group,

-MSK

From: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 6:50 PM
To: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02)

Folks,

Paul

---

From: Eran Hammer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:03:24 -0700

This clearly does not belong in the Security area or the OAuth working group.

I would strongly warn that moving this effort into any WG requires very careful work on the charter as historically there has been very little consensus and success in agreeing on what problems we are trying to solve. RFC 6415 was the end of a 5+ years process across multiple standard bodies including the IETF, W3C, OASIS, and the OpenID Foundation. This has proved a really hard problem to *define*.

EH

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 6:57 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02)

-MSK

From: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> [mailto:[email-masked]]<mailto:[mailto:[email-masked]]> On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 4:35 AM
To: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02)

To the working group,

-MSK

Folks,

Paul

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:18:11 +0000

That sounds like a mighty strong statement that, in any case, it's not appropriate for APPSAWG.

Perhaps the proponents should request a non-WG list to talk about it for a while to let the problem definition congeal for a while, and then request a working group when a charter falls out of that.

-MSK

From: Eran Hammer [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:03 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02)

EH

From: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 6:57 AM
To: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02)

-MSK

To the working group,

-MSK

Folks,

Paul

---

From: Eran Hammer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:46:57 -0700

It would be appropriate for APPSAWG if the scope is narrowly defined as adding a few enhancements to RFC 6415 (which *is* what the current draft attempts to do, even though its prose might sounds grander). But in the context of the recent OAuth WG meeting discussing a competing foundation (SWD), a new WG seems to be in order.

My concern is that we are reaching a point (or maybe pass it) where progressing a work to standards track RFC status no longer translate into requiring new work to explain why it cannot build on top of the published standard. If this body throws away work as recent as October 2011 just because it's more convenient for some to start from scratch, I don't see why anyone would bother go through the significant cost and effort of getting it published here in the first place.

EH

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:18 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02)

-MSK

From: Eran Hammer [mailto:[email-masked]]<mailto:[mailto:[email-masked]]>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:03 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02)

EH

-MSK

To the working group,

-MSK

Folks,

Paul

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 17:12:06 +0000

I'm not advocating throwing anything away.  I'm proposing figuring out what path would be most appropriate, regardless of whether it's a new innovation or a derivative innovation.

Our charter constrains us to small tasks.  If webfinger can legitimately be characterized as a small task, then we can do a call for adoption.  If not, which seems to be the case, then this isn't the right place for it, and we have other procedures for advancing such work.  That's the question I'm posing here.

-MSK

From: Eran Hammer [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:47 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02)

EH

-MSK

EH

-MSK

To the working group,

-MSK

Folks,

Paul

---

From: Eran Hammer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 19:26:50 -0700

And my answer is that right now it is a small task, but the responses indicated that some people might want it to be bigger.

EH

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 10:12 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02)

-MSK

EH

-MSK

EH

-MSK

To the working group,

-MSK

Folks,

Paul

---

From: "Paul E. Jones" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 02:09:31 -0400

Given that it is building on the existing RFCs (6415, in particular), with
very little addition, I do not think an entire WG is necessary.

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:57 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02)

Would this work better fit in another working group like OAuth (which has
its own interest and concerns in webfinger), or perhaps in its own working
group?  It may well be that it's too big to fit in APPSAWG's charter for
smaller work items.

-MSK

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 4:35 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02)

To the working group,

This has been hovering outside APPSAWG for two meetings now.  Is APPSAWG the
right place to process it?  That is, should we bring it in as a working
group document?  Or would it be better done through the ISE, or perhaps in
some other working group?

-MSK

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 6:50 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02)

Folks,

Paul

---

From: "Paul E. Jones" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 02:13:56 -0400

I do classify this as a small task.  The Webfinger draft does the following:

.         Introduces the acct URI scheme for use with RFC 6415

.         Introduces the acct link relation for the same

.         Mandates use of JRD (defined in RFC 6415)

.         Introduces a "resource" parameter to be used with RFC 6415

I think that's a complete list.  As Eran said, it may be perceived as
something bigger than it is.  RFC 6415 is a framework and Webfinger builds
on that, with a particular emphasis on user account URIs and stuff to
support those.

Paul 

Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 1:12 PM

I'm not advocating throwing anything away.  I'm proposing figuring out what
path would be most appropriate, regardless of whether it's a new innovation
or a derivative innovation.

Our charter constrains us to small tasks.  If webfinger can legitimately be
characterized as a small task, then we can do a call for adoption.  If not,
which seems to be the case, then this isn't the right place for it, and we
have other procedures for advancing such work.  That's the question I'm
posing here.

-MSK

It would be appropriate for APPSAWG if the scope is narrowly defined as
adding a few enhancements to RFC 6415 (which *is* what the current draft
attempts to do, even though its prose might sounds grander). But in the
context of the recent OAuth WG meeting discussing a competing foundation
(SWD), a new WG seems to be in order.

My concern is that we are reaching a point (or maybe pass it) where
progressing a work to standards track RFC status no longer translate into
requiring new work to explain why it cannot build on top of the published
standard. If this body throws away work as recent as October 2011 just
because it's more convenient for some to start from scratch, I don't see why
anyone would bother go through the significant cost and effort of getting it
published here in the first place.

EH

 

That sounds like a mighty strong statement that, in any case, it's not
appropriate for APPSAWG.

Perhaps the proponents should request a non-WG list to talk about it for a
while to let the problem definition congeal for a while, and then request a
working group when a charter falls out of that.

-MSK

This clearly does not belong in the Security area or the OAuth working
group.

I would strongly warn that moving this effort into any WG requires very
careful work on the charter as historically there has been very little
consensus and success in agreeing on what problems we are trying to solve.
RFC 6415 was the end of a 5+ years process across multiple standard bodies
including the IETF, W3C, OASIS, and the OpenID Foundation. This has proved a
really hard problem to *define*.

EH

-MSK

To the working group,

-MSK

Folks,

Paul

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:45:19 +0200

On 3/30/12 4:26 AM, Eran Hammer wrote:
> And my answer is that right now it is a small task, but the responses
> indicated that some people might want it to be bigger.

I also think it's a small task. If some people construe it as larger,
then perhaps we need to clarify the scope in the document.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/