W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-federatedsocialweb@w3.org > October 2011

R: OpenID Connect Discovery not Webfinger based?

From: Goix Laurent Walter <laurentwalter.goix@telecomitalia.it>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:21:59 +0200
To: elf Pavlik <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>, public-xg-federatedsocialweb <public-xg-federatedsocialweb@w3.org>
CC: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>, "openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net" <openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net>
Message-ID: <A09A9E0A4B9C654E8672D1DC003633AE4056C641ED@GRFMBX704BA020.griffon.local>
Hello all,

Thank you Elf for joining the communities.

It would be indeed beneficial to understand the rationale behind the need for another discovery tool. SWD looks more as an API to get a single service than WebFinger, which is very useful for retrieving all information at once, plus reuses XRD signature etc.

It may also worth trying harmonizing them if they are new/additional/compatible requirements.

As a side discussion, the "acct:" URI scheme is mentioned by both proposals (with a '//' difference). Is anyone already active in having it standardized?


-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: public-xg-federatedsocialweb-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-federatedsocialweb-request@w3.org] Per conto di elf Pavlik
Inviato: venerdì 21 ottobre 2011 22.39
A: public-xg-federatedsocialweb
Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav; openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net
Oggetto: Re: OpenID Connect Discovery not Webfinger based?

Hello Everyone,

I don't have much xp with such cross mailing list + individuals conversations so I warmly welcome any suggestion of using To, Cc, threading and quotes in smarter way, some relevant ones related to thread I have started here:

Excerpts from Eran Hammer-Lahav's message of 2011-10-21 22:12:18 +0200:
> I'm trying to avoid getting re-engaged in this conversation all over again. SWD is mostly a duplicated effort for host-meta, especially now that host-meta supports a simple JSON structure. The OpenID Connect effort is largely a waste of time because the market has moved on from that and I can't see any large providers investing much in it without FB or Twitter using it.
> I am happy to give my 5c but am not looking to get invested in this. Happy to join a conf call or answer a few questions via email.

Excerpts from Michiel de Jong's message of 2011-10-21 14:57:51 +0200:
> ok, so the big difference between webfinger and swd is that webfinger is
> always the same static file, depending only on the username, and swd can
> answer specific entries. i can see now how there can be situations where you
> want to control access per-entry, and why swd might then be the only valid
> choice.

I would really like to discuss it with people interested in this Webfinger vs. SWD issue!
Maybe we could try to organize a teleconf to clarify few things about it?

~ elf Pavlik ~

Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie.

This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks.

Received on Monday, 24 October 2011 09:22:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:47:51 UTC