FWIW, the "Dynamic OAuth Client Registration" proposal made by the User-Managed Access folks:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hardjono-oauth-dynreg-00 ...makes use of XRD, hostmeta, and discovery, as does the OAuth-based UMA protocol itself: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hardjono-oauth-umacore-00.txt We'd be just as happy to use a JSON-based version of XRD if it can be standardized, and we did do some experimentation with this early on. But because XRD 1.0 is now stable and is straightforward enough to use for our needs, we decided to use it normatively for now. The UMA implementation used by http://smartam.net implements this today and it works fine. Eve On 3 Jul 2011, at 9:50 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote: > Hannes, > > None of the current OAuth WG document address discovery in any way, so > clearly there will be no use of XRD. But the OAuth community predating the > IETF had multiple proposals for it. In addition, multiple times on the IETF > OAuth WG list, people have suggested using host-meta and XRD for discovery > purposes. > > The idea that XRD was reused without merit is both misleading and > mean-spirited. Personally, I'm sick of it, especially coming from standards > professionals. > > XRD was largely developed by the same people who worked on host-meta. XRD > predated host-meta and was designed to cover the wider use case. Host-meta > was an important use case when developing XRD in its final few months. It was > done in OASIS out of respect to proper standards process in which the body > that originated a work (XRDS) gets to keep it. > > I challenge anyone to find any faults with the IPR policy or process used to > develop host-meta in OASIS. > > XRD is one of the simplest XML formats I have seen. I bet most of the people > bashing it now have never bothered to read it. At least some of these people > have been personally invited by me to comment on XRD while it was still in > development and chose to dismiss it. > > XRD was designed in a very open process with plenty of community feedback and > it was significantly simplified based on that feedback. In addition, > host-meta further simplifies it by profiling it down, removing some of the > more complex elements like Subject and Alias (which are very useful in other > contexts). XRD is nothing more than a cleaner version of HTML <LINK> elements > with literally a handful of new elements based on well defined and widely > supported requirements. It's entire semantic meaning is based on the IETF > Link relation registry RFC. > > There is something very disturbing going on these days in how people treat > XML-based formats, especially form OASIS. > > When host-meta's predecessor - side–meta – was originally proposed a few > years ago, Mark Nottingham proposed an XML format not that different from > XRD. There is nothing wrong with JSON taking over as a simpler alternative. I > personally prefer JSON much better. But it would be reckless and counter > productive to ignore a decade of work on XML formats just because it is no > longer cool. Feels like we back in high school. > > If you have technical arguments against host-meta, please share. But if your > objections are based on changing trends, dislike of XML or anything OASIS, > grow up. > > EHL > > > > From: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net> > Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 00:36:29 -0700 > To: Mark Nottingham <m...@mnot.net> > Cc: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net>, "ietf@ietf.org IETF" > <ietf@ietf.org>, Eran Hammer-lahav <e...@hueniverse.com>, oauth WG > <oa...@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: Second Last Call: <draft-hammer-hostmeta-16.txt> (Web Host > Metadata) to Proposed Standard -- feedback > >> I also never really understood why XRD was re-used. >> >> Btw, XRD is not used by any of the current OAuth WG documents, see >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/oauth/ >> >> >> On Jun 22, 2011, at 8:08 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> >>> * XRD -- XRD is an OASIS spec that's used by OpenID and OAuth. Maybe I'm >>> just scarred by WS-*, but it seems very over-engineered for what it does. I >>> understand that the communities had reasons for using it to leverage an >>> existing user base for their specific user cases, but I don't see any >>> reason to generalise such a beast into a generic mechanism. >> >> > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > oa...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth Eve Maler http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog +1 425 345 6756 http://www.twitter.com/xmlgrrl
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
