IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> Tue, 03 July 2012 11:04 UTC

Return-Path: <GK@ninebynine.org>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 659F821F8800 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 04:04:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.718
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.718 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.119, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VNSIvKEMoBt2 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 04:04:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay3.mail.ox.ac.uk (relay3.mail.ox.ac.uk [163.1.2.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 682CD21F8639 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 04:04:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.mail.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.1.207]) by relay3.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from <GK@ninebynine.org>) id 1Sm0uQ-00048e-Cn; Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:04:42 +0100
Received: from tinos.zoo.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.24.47]) by smtp1.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <GK@ninebynine.org>) id 1Sm0uQ-0004eu-63; Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:04:42 +0100
Message-ID: <4FF2B820.5040301@ninebynine.org>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 10:15:12 +0100
From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812B6B6@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <CAKaEYhKpeayOw4sN4=NYaoXKJQ2e5P+pP8SqJqnt-=Barb=WqA@mail.gmail.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394366568E4F@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <1340723227.60315.YahooMailNeo@web31801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394366568FF8@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <043201cd54a5$79f2e170$6dd8a450$@packetizer.com> <CAKaEYhL0NS=RZXTdyOMBM_q15P7D1KZ9kgUyMYYB06kA9f0w8Q@mail.gmail.com> <4FEC3B4F.80607@ninebynine.org> <4FEC8BF0.6070605@stpeter.im> <4FEFBF51.5000905@stpeter.im> <4FF18B9C.4010102@ninebynine.org> <4FF1C243.2000008@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <4FF1C243.2000008@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Oxford-Username: zool0635
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 11:04:38 -0000

On 02/07/2012 16:46, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> >  == Section 4.4 ==
>> >
>> >  My understanding is that an acct: URI is intended to be dereferenced
>> >  using the WebFinger protocol.
> My understanding is that the WebFinger protocol defines one way for
> 'acct' URIs to be dereferenced, but that other protocols might also
> define such ways in the future. If I am wrong about that and 'acct' is
> tightly coupled with WebFinger, then we need to make that clear in the
> 'acct' URI spec.

If it's not the case, then I think a key reason for acct: being useful as a 
distinct URI scheme is scuppered.

#g
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email