Revised WebFinger spec (draft -15)

[Paul E. Jones]

Folks,

Having reviewed the thread below and taken other input into consideration, I
revised the WebFinger document and it now appears as draft -15.

Here's a summary of changes and responses on some comments made:

* Most significantly, I removed all of the contentious examples. I kept
the OpenID Connect example and brought over an "http" example from RFC
6415.
Neither should be contentious, since the first is a concrete example
from OpenID and the second is an example that existed already in an RFC.
No example email auto config, device: URI, or locating a blog given an
email
Address.

* I did not change the language to say that WF is a framework. It is a
protocol
with a well-defined syntax, not unlike HTTP. What one requests and what
payload, like HTTP, is really outside the scope of the spec. That said,
Section 1 states that applications that desire to use WF must specify
"properties, titles, and link relation types that are appropriate for the
application". Is this sufficient to address this concern?

* There was a suggestion to define a "rel" registry. Such a registry
already exists: http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/

* Clarified that some server responses may have either an empty links array
or no links array. (No change in behavior, but this clarification was
requested.)

* I removed text in section 4.5 that recommends the use of the acct URI
scheme. Applications / usage specifications will indicate what scheme
to use and we do not need to dance around this issue in the protocol spec.

* A few minor edits (e.g., references and word choice)

You can find the current text here:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-webfinger-15

Paul