Jones
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 9:18 AM
To: Blaine Cook
Cc: oauth@ietf.org WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Web Finger vs. Simple Web Discovery (SWD)
Hi Blaine. I must admit, I’m pretty surprised by the tone of your reply. I’ll
say up front that I have absolutely no problem with anyone disagreeing
** **
** **
** **
*From:* oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf
Of *Mike Jones
*Sent:* Friday, April 13, 2012 9:18 AM
*To:* Blaine Cook
*Cc:* oauth@ietf.org WG
*Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] Web Finger vs. Simple Web Discovery (SWD)
** **
Hi Blaine. I must admit, I’m
Jones
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 9:18 AM
To: Blaine Cook
Cc: oauth@ietf.org WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Web Finger vs. Simple Web Discovery (SWD)
Hi Blaine. I must admit, I’m pretty surprised by the tone of your reply.
I’ll say up front that I have absolutely no problem with anyone
Could someone please explain to me how Webfinger solves the same problem as
SWD?
Isn't Webfinger just defining a way to discover data about a user using the
Web Host Metadata discovery mechanism that's already defined in RFC 6415?
While SWD instead defines an entirely new discovery mechanism
that we both share.
From: Blaine Cook [mailto:rom...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 3:41 PM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; oauth@ietf.org WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Web Finger vs. Simple Web Discovery (SWD)
On 12 April 2012 17:51, Mike Jones
michael.jo
Hi All,
So Hannes and Derek and I have been discussing this with
the Apps ADs and Apps-area WG chairs. I've also read the
docs now, and after all that we've decided that this topic
(what to do with swd and webfinger) is best handled in the
apps area and not in the oauth WG.
The logic for that
On 12 April 2012 13:00, Hannes Tschofenig hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net wrote:
Hi all,
those who had attended the last IETF meeting may have noticed the ongoing
activity in the 'Applications Area Working Group' regarding Web Finger.
We had our discussion regarding Simple Web Discovery (SWD) as
, 2012 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Web Finger vs. Simple Web Discovery (SWD)
John,
I agree with you on everything you said about the differences. My
question: Are these not about API rather than the protocol?
(I was just trying to see if I can find a common fixed point to start
On 13 April 2012 12:18, Mike Jones michael.jo...@microsoft.com wrote:
Hi Blaine. I must admit, I’m pretty surprised by the tone of your
reply. I’ll say up front that I have absolutely no problem with anyone
disagreeing with me on a technical or tactical basis. If you think I’m
wrong, have
,
-- Mike
From: Blaine Cook [mailto:rom...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 3:47 PM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: oauth@ietf.org WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Web Finger vs. Simple Web Discovery (SWD)
On 13 April 2012 12:18, Mike Jones
michael.jo
Hi all,
those who had attended the last IETF meeting may have noticed the ongoing
activity in the 'Applications Area Working Group' regarding Web Finger.
We had our discussion regarding Simple Web Discovery (SWD) as part of the
re-chartering process.
Here are the two specifications:
Kudos for bringing this up!
imho, speccers gonna spec and it's impossible to stop overlapping
specs from showing up all the time. we'll have to live with the
existence of multiple standards.
Clients will just have to stand above whatever political reasons lie
behind them, and support both, just
On 04/12/2012 12:00 PM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Hi all,
those who had attended the last IETF meeting may have noticed the
ongoing activity in the 'Applications Area Working Group' regarding Web
Finger.
We had our discussion regarding Simple Web Discovery (SWD) as part of
the
To me this looks like more than the same problem being solved--it
appears to be the same protocol... I wonder if, the representation
issues were put aside (i.e., left to the API specification), the common
part is what can be adopted.
Igor
On 4/12/2012 8:01 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
On
There are important deployment and privacy issues that caused openID Connect to
use SWD.
I was part of the OASIS XRI/XRD work that Web Finger has been based on.
The main differences are around allowing all of the users information to be
publicly discoverable, vs providing for access control.
Where is this access control and user centric architecture described? I could
not find it.
EH
On Apr 12, 2012, at 14:01, John Bradley ve7...@ve7jtb.com wrote:
There are important deployment and privacy issues that caused openID Connect
to use SWD.
I was part of the OASIS XRI/XRD work
John,
I agree with you on everything you said about the differences. My
question: Are these not about API rather than the protocol?
(I was just trying to see if I can find a common fixed point to start with.)
Igor
On 4/12/2012 2:00 PM, John Bradley wrote:
There are important deployment
SWD takes more of a API approach where a query is made about a specific
resource type about a specific subject (email format or URI ).
The current draft of the spec doesn't go into detail on how a requester is
identified and given authorization to discover the resource. One could
imagine
There is no reason that SWD would not be a host service that host-meta could
list like any other.
That should be supported now by the host-meta spec.
The question is client complexity.
A client could look in host-meta and do SWD if it finds that service and no
mapping template, or the
not.
-- Mike
-Original Message-
From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Hannes Tschofenig
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 4:00 AM
To: oauth@ietf.org WG
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Web Finger vs. Simple Web Discovery (SWD)
Hi all,
those who had
On 12 April 2012 17:51, Mike Jones michael.jo...@microsoft.com wrote:
Thanks for asking these questions Hannes. I'll first provide a brief
feature comparison of Simple Web Discovery and WebFinger and then answer
your questions.
FEATURE COMPARISON
RESULT GRANULARITY AND PRIVACY
21 matches
Mail list logo
