IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-acct-uri-05.txt

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Mon, 01 July 2013 18:02 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 C472F21F98AC for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 11:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.365
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.365 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.234, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 oK90kpAIM3ss for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 11:02:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0BC221F96EB for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 11:02:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ergon.local (unknown [128.107.239.233]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D188641346; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 12:02:50 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <51D1C423.5000804@stpeter.im>
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 12:02:11 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
References: <20130617205341.15641.96770.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <51BF786B.9060703@stpeter.im> <016d01ce767f$2ea45990$8bed0cb0$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <016d01ce767f$2ea45990$8bed0cb0$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-acct-uri-05.txt
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: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 18:02:18 -0000

On 7/1/13 11:19 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> I'm wondering whether it would make sense to add a feature allowing
> associate a date to an account. This would address problems arising from
> account recycling (think Yahoo). Maybe something like
> 
>    acct:bob@example.com?date=20130701
> 
> I think at the very least this should be covered in the security
> considerations.

IMHO we're beyond the point of adding new features to the 'acct' URI
scheme (it has completed Working Group Last Call, IETF Last Call, and
IESG review -- currently I'm working to address one issue about i18n
that arose during IESG review, so that the document can be approved for
publication).

However, a date could be included in an API or protocol that enables
applications to use 'acct' URIs. Is there a reason why this would need
to be included in the URI itself?

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email