From markus.lanthaler@gmx.net Thu Nov 15 04:59:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1A7D21F88D9 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 04:59:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.264 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.264 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FtmkfL7NDAnr for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 04:59:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D56FD21F88D4 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 04:59:46 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 15 Nov 2012 12:58:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (EHLO Vostro3500) [84.115.182.43] by mail.gmx.net (mp069) with SMTP; 15 Nov 2012 13:58:43 +0100 X-Authenticated: #419883 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+4cbE+/rC4Edh2un6b+z/JjMH4HlSm+fNjLeHDie TdKJTdWZMsiDxb From: "Markus Lanthaler" To: Subject: Use of describedby link relation Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 13:58:26 +0100 Message-ID: <010001cdc330$e75a1720$b60e4560$@lanthaler@gmx.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Content-Language: de Thread-Index: Ac3DMOasmSzqsMCeTE2qwnU85+AuBQ== X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:59:48 -0000 Hi, I have a question regarding the use of the describedby link relation. In JSON-LD [1] we have something that we call a "context". Its purpose is mainly to map terms to IRIs to allow their unambiguous identification. In a JSON-LD document that context is stored in a "@context" property like so: { "@context": { "name": "http://example.com/name" }, "name": "Markus Lanthaler" } To allow developers to build on existing infrastructure, i.e., keep their JSON documents unchanged but nevertheless allow them to link to such a "context" we use a HTTP link header with the relation type "descibedby" [2]: Link: ; rel="describedby"; type="application/ld+json" We now got some complaints [3] that we are abusing "describedby" since a) we are not linking to POWDER documents, and b) the way we use it doesn't match the semantics of that link relation. I would appreciate your opinion on that. Do you think we should mint a new link relation or is it a sensible decision to use "describedby" for this!? Thank you very much, Markus [1] http://json-ld.org/ [2] http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/#referencing-contexts-from-jso n-documents [3] https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/197 -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler From mnot@mnot.net Tue Nov 20 18:26:09 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA52D21F8754 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 18:26:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.413 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.413 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.814, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8D5O7JAjTWPY for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 18:26:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9AC421F86D2 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 18:26:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.75] (unknown [118.209.244.234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 34CE7509B5; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 21:26:06 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) Subject: Re: Use of describedby link relation From: Mark Nottingham In-Reply-To: <010001cdc330$e75a1720$b60e4560$@lanthaler@gmx.net> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 13:26:06 +1100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1D5073BD-578C-4F7E-B8DA-0A5EB7D15FAD@mnot.net> References: <010001cdc330$e75a1720$b60e4560$@lanthaler@gmx.net> To: Markus Lanthaler X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) Cc: link-relations@ietf.org X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 02:26:09 -0000 First of all, link relations are explicitly NOT linked to any particular = media type -- so the argument that describedBy is exclusive to POWDER -- = assuming that means a media type -- is misfounded. Indeed, POWDER itself says: > This is a generic relationship type that does not of itself imply that = the link points to a POWDER document =97 that is done by the specific = Media type. The definition of describedBy is: > Refers to a resource providing information about the link's context. That's it. This is quite vague; some relations are.=20 Personally, it if were me, I'd want a relation type that is more = concrete, but if describedBy works for you, go for it, I'd say. Cheers, On 15/11/2012, at 11:58 PM, Markus Lanthaler = wrote: > Hi, >=20 > I have a question regarding the use of the describedby link relation. >=20 > In JSON-LD [1] we have something that we call a "context". Its purpose = is > mainly to map terms to IRIs to allow their unambiguous identification. = In a > JSON-LD document that context is stored in a "@context" property like = so: >=20 > { > "@context": { > "name": "http://example.com/name" > }, > "name": "Markus Lanthaler" > } >=20 > To allow developers to build on existing infrastructure, i.e., keep = their > JSON documents unchanged but nevertheless allow them to link to such a > "context" we use a HTTP link header with the relation type = "descibedby" [2]: >=20 > Link: ; rel=3D"describedby"; > type=3D"application/ld+json" >=20 > We now got some complaints [3] that we are abusing "describedby" since = a) we > are not linking to POWDER documents, and b) the way we use it doesn't = match > the semantics of that link relation. >=20 >=20 > I would appreciate your opinion on that. Do you think we should mint a = new > link relation or is it a sensible decision to use "describedby" for = this!? >=20 >=20 >=20 > Thank you very much, > Markus >=20 >=20 > [1] http://json-ld.org/ > [2] > = http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/#referencing-contexts-from-j= so > n-documents > [3] https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/197 >=20 >=20 >=20 > -- > Markus Lanthaler > @markuslanthaler >=20 > _______________________________________________ > link-relations mailing list > link-relations@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ From markus.lanthaler@gmx.net Wed Nov 21 01:09:54 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9751721F865E for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 01:09:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.801 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.463, BAYES_05=-1.11, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V781E6LHTgW4 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 01:09:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9C2A521F865B for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 01:09:53 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 21 Nov 2012 09:09:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (EHLO Vostro3500) [84.115.182.43] by mail.gmx.net (mp041) with SMTP; 21 Nov 2012 10:09:25 +0100 X-Authenticated: #419883 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18IesRtqOYIRk1wEgjNLQn0dp/5cRqJT9Ai3IKCDe PXNzdkBzWAQYzW From: "Markus Lanthaler" To: "'Mark Nottingham'" References: <010001cdc330$e75a1720$b60e4560$@lanthaler@gmx.net> <1D5073BD-578C-4F7E-B8DA-0A5EB7D15FAD@mnot.net> In-Reply-To: <1D5073BD-578C-4F7E-B8DA-0A5EB7D15FAD@mnot.net> Subject: RE: Use of describedby link relation Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:09:16 +0100 Message-ID: <00b901cdc7c7$e2ec9ff0$a8c5dfd0$@lanthaler@gmx.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac3Hj5BeBA/hsXLETyGzUkhpEVmDNgAOBaqA Content-Language: de X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: link-relations@ietf.org X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:09:54 -0000 > That's it. This is quite vague; some relations are. > > Personally, it if were me, I'd want a relation type that is more > concrete, but if describedBy works for you, go for it, I'd say. Thanks a lot Mark. Indeed that's what we decided to do. We will use an IRI for the time being. Cheers, Markus -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler From jan.algermissen@nordsc.com Fri Nov 30 01:12:09 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46C9C21F8448 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 01:12:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.76 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.76 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BC7NWeEgGGpS for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 01:12:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.186]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8806D21F846C for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 01:12:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.2.111] (p548FBDB9.dip.t-dialin.net [84.143.189.185]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mreu3) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MdArm-1TwRim2TzO-00ILcY; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:12:06 +0100 From: Jan Algermissen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Review of draft-wmills-oauth-lrdd-06.txt Message-Id: Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:12:05 +0100 To: link-relations@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:4fOIvPfFot2OGU6ZWaRJm4zwlGn/Jnmvl+MIp5eztK4 1fb4UR31q69F32F2j+VyAHGNzG1eo7Kp4gRgM1l4M02jH6T0P8 NLDz22KvVxvL4Miya7YUqDSSV0M6585tL1aM2lvMUeoiQXxc3i tt215WcyVal4Qq8ml2CaBBYNQ7Q4psI7/sCtYWx3OJItuFZqYP oTl8L1b92VZ0bC9zGchwlumueclBp4SYxc4+yxw0gV8B2wpNUf 2jtP7CcpODolBJiDIvYjzwh5bqev9bcJKZH3btADZpZHKBU61V FEn+CyizHtJ+8wlSXmDKtKWLGu09UnvU7DR9BxKWbumpSD6/ks Akt/xT1PyJnsKYIdfPnqizQIWRPJ0mcafFF0SsY5LIKZ5svI+d +0vmFyVKcwtDQ== X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:12:09 -0000 Hi, this is a review of draft-wmills-oauth-lrdd-06.txt Jan Overall: "link type" -> "link relation type" 1. Introduction I don't think that the I-D needs to reference "Web Host Metadata" and = "Web Finger" specs. The means of using the relation types is orthogonal = to their specification. 3. OAuth 2 Link Types (-> "Link Relation Types" :-) Consider s/endpoint/entrypoint/g - I know that OAuth uses 'endpoint', = but the proper term on the Web would really be 'entry point' 3.1 [Change headline to:] The 'oauth2-authorize' Link Relation Type Suggested rewording: "This link relation type indicates a resource that represents an OAuth 2 = authorization entry point to be used for user authentication/authorization to grant access to a protected resource." 3.2 [Change headline to:] The 'oauth2-token' Link Relation Type Suggested rewording: "This link relation type indicates a resource that represents an OAuth 2 = token entry point to be used for obtaining tokens to access protected services. This link type has two = link-extensions: ...." 4.1 - 4.3 Likewise 3.1 and 3.2 change the headline and text. What is to be defined = here is not the endpoint (erm, entry point) but the link relation type. In addition, I second Julian's comments made here: = http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/current/msg00418.html One final remark, Given that there are a number of OAuth-ish protocols existing and = emerging I think it would be a good idea to investigate decoupling the = link relation types from these protocols - if possible. An = 'authorization endpoint' likely has the same semantic across all of = those protocols. If clients can determine the actual variant at runtime, *after* = discovering the entry point resources we would not need to register = virtualy the same link relation types over and over again for all the = protcols. Please do take a look whether this is possible. (Your I-D does this = already for OAuth 1 and 2) Jan