A couple months ago I was checking out what was up. The AOL and Yahoo endpoints no longer worked. The Google one still did.
On Apr 17, 2012, at 3:54 PM, Blaine Cook wrote: > That's a tricky question - maybe one google can help answer? There are a > bunch of projects using webfinger, including status.net, ostatus in general, > diaspora, unhosted, freedombox(?), and I'm sure others, but I have no idea > how that translates into actual users or profiles. > > Gmail, aol, and yahoo all put up webfinger endpoints, but there hasn't been > much movement, I think due to the chicken and egg nature of adoption around > decentralized tools. > > b. > > On Apr 17, 2012 11:13 AM, "Tim Bray" <tb...@textuality.com> wrote: > What is the deployment status of these two specs? Is either deployed > much at all? -T > > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <m...@cloudmark.com> > wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: apps-discuss-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-boun...@ietf.org] > >> On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell > >> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 9:23 AM > >> To: oauth@ietf.org WG > >> Cc: Apps Discuss > >> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [OAUTH-WG] Web Finger vs. Simple Web Discovery > >> (SWD) > >> > >> 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 is that 1) the two proposals are doing the same > >> thing and we don't want two different standards for that, b) this is > >> not an oauth-specific thing nor is it a general security thing, and c) > >> there is clearly already interest in the topic in the apps area so its > >> reasonable for the oauth wg to use that when its ready. > >> > >> The appsawg chairs and apps ADs are ok with the work being done there. > >> > >> So:- > >> > >> - I've asked the oauth chairs to take doing work on swd > >> out of the proposed new charter > >> - It may be that you want to add something saying that > >> oauth will use the results of work in the applications > >> area on a web discovery protocol as a basis for doing > >> the dynamic client registration work here > >> - Discussion of webfinger and swd should move over to > >> the apps-discuss list > >> - Note: this is not picking one or the other approach, > >> the plan is that the apps area will do any selection > >> needed and figure out the best starting point for a > >> standards-track RFC on web discovery and we'll use their > >> fine work for doing more with oauth. > > > > Thank you Stephen, I think. :-) > > > > So the discussion on apps-discuss now should be focused on which of the two > > should be the basis for forward progress. I've placed both documents in > > "Call for Adoption" state in the datatracker for appsawg. > > > > Let the games begin. > > > > -MSK > > _______________________________________________ > > apps-discuss mailing list > > apps-disc...@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
