Skip to main content

Open Issues for Discovery / Webfinger

The problem: Discover information that wants to publish to the world; things like their preferred identity provider, their public avatar, public contact methods, etc. Same mechanism should basically work for or, no wheel reinvention.

The Webfinger session at the last IIW was quite productive in the sense that it produced a long list of open issues that need resolution. The whiteboard snapshot to the right (stitched together thanks to @factoryjoe) shows the list, albeit in low res form. Translating the notes, and giving my takes:

Starting assumption : Domain owners need to play along. We're not trying to handle the case where wants to be discoverable, but doesn't control and the domain owner doesn't want to implement discovery.

Open Issues

Location of host-meta data: Older spec calls for this to be at /host-meta for every domain; Mark Nottingham has updated his proposal to create a /.well-known/ directory instead and put host-meta in there; I'm +10 to that.

Should discoverers try if itself doesn't support discovery? My take: No, if doesn't provide the discovery info directly it can do a 3xx redirect to a site that does. Don't complicate the protocol.

Should discoverers try https: URLs first? My take: No; this is not confidential data, and if you want source verification, it's more complicated than just using SSL and there are other solutions coming down the pike that are better.

What should the protocol do with 3xx's? This clearly needs a working group convened to decide on the exact correct flavor of 3xx to use in different situations. But, don't screw over people who need to move web sites and who leave a 301 to point to a new location.

Should it support other name@domain identifiers beyond email? Yes, of course.

Proxy problems with Accept: & Vary for getting discovery data from top level domains: This goes away with /.well-known.

What should the exact template semantics be (just {id}, or {local} + {domain} be for mapping a name@domain ID to a URL? Doesn't matter, pick one.

Must the discovery data be signed to enable the pattern to work? No, clients should make their own security decisions based on the evidence given. Signing is a good idea; make it easy to accomplish.

We need to document best practices on doing all of this stuff. Yes.


  1. If I were to want to keep up on the progress being made, where would I go to do that?

  2. This is the best place so far: But it is fragmented across a few other specs, so it is difficult to track progress.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The problem with creation date metadata in PDF documents

Last night Rachel Maddow talked about an apparently fake NSA document "leaked" to her organization.  There's a lot of info there, I suggest you listen to the whole thing:

There's a lot to unpack there but it looks like somebody tried to fool MSNBC into running with a fake accusation based on faked NSA documents, apparently based on cloning the document the Intercept published back on 6/5/2017, which to all appearances was itself a real NSA document in PDF form.

I think the main thrust of this story is chilling and really important to get straight -- some person or persons unknown is sending forged PDFs to news organization(s), apparently trying to get them to run stories based on forged documents.  And I completely agree with Maddow that she was right to send up a "signal flare" to all the news organizations to look out for forgeries.  Really, really, really import…

Why I'm No Longer On The Facebook

I've had a Facebook account for a few years, largely because other people were on it and were organizing useful communities there.  I stuck with it (not using it for private information) even while I grew increasingly concerned about Facebook's inability to be trustworthy guardians of private information.  The recent slap on the wrist from the FTC for Facebook violating the terms of its prior consent agreement made it clear that there wasn't going to be any penalty for Facebook for continuing to violate court orders.
Mark Zuckerberg claimed he had made a mistake in 2016 by ridiculing the idea of election interference on his platform, apologized, and claimed he was turning over a new leaf:
“After the election, I made a comment that I thought the idea misinformation on Facebook changed the outcome of the election was a crazy idea. Calling that crazy was dismissive and I regret it.  This is too important an issue to be dismissive.” It turns out, though, that was just Zuck ly…

My faxed letter to both my Senators this morning

My faxed letter to both my Senators this morning.

Senators Grassley and Graham, this morning, engaged in an obvious act of witness intimidation. They leaked a letter to the Justice Department referring criminal prosecution against Mr. Steele for alleged but unspecified false statements to, apparently, the FBI.

This is on the heels of Senator Grassley refusing to release the testimony of Fusion GPS, refusing to allow the public to evaluate the claims of Simpson vs. selective and apparently inaccurate leaks of said information from the Republican members of the committee.

This is outrageous.

It is unacceptable. It is un-American. These Senators are trying to achieve in then court of public opinion what they have no chance of doing in a real court. They are themselves engaging in witness intimidation & obstruction of justice.

I call on you to denounce this desperate and illegal act by your colleagues and to introduce a motion to censure these two sitting Senators who have demeaned th…