Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question

SM <> Wed, 27 June 2012 23:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EC3311E814B for <>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:55:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.568
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.031, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f2WnbQ4MXcOC for <>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:55:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE5F411E8151 for <>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:55:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (IDENT:sm@localhost []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5RNtSoN027369; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:55:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1340841333; bh=bEkHwmxTec5ruoEUYQzH/ju1bumryHW6wSrX0MkOOjs=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=FA/V2haIRcFQsYvkNv3xZQT7lDjfa9Xxa/TGu7pk2eNFQiSsS/rQhP2zIdP9BDBQ2 taOhVr/Esvd3knPVjG2R0m/D+ZJyVOhLOhRzpUHPF0o9Cdv8yPBlN1Fx8xHRk5fBKo luJ1qq1SWaZ686yqu9zIzVRkKLtIjzcElZIO+FYE=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1340841333;; bh=bEkHwmxTec5ruoEUYQzH/ju1bumryHW6wSrX0MkOOjs=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=xfLLDGJRDIF89CbIOGpUlhVWvdiJ2NLkrpbQn8nsku8yeDYF9Bd/7l8ahkivbqARt yPOp+UI7ayCJokluUlWRYv+vJn6LZ6HB6JZ7VrCw5WSSvx/m3IRhMS/7zxEhHKa0gu 9ApLw40XfLkq2DZgM9mU0cwyIj3jUzsuyH6hGzCQ=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:50:44 -0700
To: "Paul E. Jones" <>
From: SM <>
In-Reply-To: <047501cd54ae$c6848a30$538d9e90$>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <047501cd54ae$c6848a30$538d9e90$>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 23:55:38 -0000

Hi Paul,
At 14:49 27-06-2012, Paul E. Jones wrote:
>Moving it to a separate document should not be necessary.  We can 
>publish the WF RFC with the "acct" URI scheme and work to get URI 
>reviewer approval in parallel.  Is URI reviewer approval required 
>first?  I don't think so.  Graham suggested that having it agreed in 
>a standards-track RFC carries a lot of weight.

If the draft is on-track as an IETF RFC, the URI review should not be 
a problem.  Graham already suggested the easy path.  If you completed 
the steps to request a URI review, it's not worth worrying about that 
if the draft is making progress.

A DISCUSS from the an IESG member is not the end of the world.  It's 
merely a question which can be answered with a little effort.  The 
ADs actually ask questions which we all know should be answered.  We 
prefer to hand-wave them though. :-)

If an author get a few good reviews for a draft, the last stages are 
easier.  If an author only wants reviews from people who will agree 
with him/her, the last stages can seem like an unsurmountable effort.