IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> Tue, 26 June 2012 13:20 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
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 E524021F8644 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 06:20:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.833
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.833 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.235, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 UgX2By+LCtfF for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 06:20:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from am1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (am1ehsobe004.messaging.microsoft.com [213.199.154.207]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63F0121F85B8 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 06:20:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail113-am1-R.bigfish.com (10.3.201.237) by AM1EHSOBE002.bigfish.com (10.3.204.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:18:40 +0000
Received: from mail113-am1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail113-am1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54250460581; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:18:40 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.8; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:TK5EX14HUBC107.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -22
X-BigFish: VS-22(zz98dI9371Ic85fhzz1202hzz1033IL8275bh8275dhz2fh2a8h668h839hd25hf0ah)
Received-SPF: pass (mail113-am1: domain of microsoft.com designates 131.107.125.8 as permitted sender) client-ip=131.107.125.8; envelope-from=Michael.Jones@microsoft.com; helo=TK5EX14HUBC107.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ; icrosoft.com ;
Received: from mail113-am1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail113-am1 (MessageSwitch) id 1340716719298844_19879; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:18:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from AM1EHSMHS001.bigfish.com (unknown [10.3.201.251]) by mail113-am1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D0053C0048; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:18:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC107.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.8) by AM1EHSMHS001.bigfish.com (10.3.207.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:18:37 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.2.53]) by TK5EX14HUBC107.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.80.67]) with mapi id 14.02.0309.003; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:20:18 +0000
From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question
Thread-Index: Ac0367W7uVNJxgK+Tf6qpowkmE64wgbqGMQAAAKM2jA=
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:20:16 +0000
Message-ID: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394366568E4F@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812B6B6@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <CAKaEYhKpeayOw4sN4=NYaoXKJQ2e5P+pP8SqJqnt-=Barb=WqA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKaEYhKpeayOw4sN4=NYaoXKJQ2e5P+pP8SqJqnt-=Barb=WqA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.32]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394366568E4FTK5EX14MBXC283r_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <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, 26 Jun 2012 13:20:29 -0000

Yes, I believe that the acct: scheme should be considered separately from discovery, in its own document.

                                                            -- Mike

From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Melvin Carvalho
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 5:06 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question


On 22 May 2012 09:22, Murray S. Kucherawy <msk@cloudmark.com<mailto:msk@cloudmark.com>> wrote:
As we prepare to bring webfinger into appsawg, it looks a lot like there's substantial discussion just on the point of the proposed "acct:" scheme.

So, a question for those tracking the discussion:  Is this a big enough topic that it should be split into its own document?  This would be a useful thing to decide as we figure out how to handle the work once it enters working group mode.

(This by itself has me wondering if we should revisit the conversation about whether webfinger needs its own working group, but I'll leave it to Barry and Pete to make that call.)

There has been some discussion of this here and on other lists, and the consensus I think is for people to follow the process at :

<uri-review@ietf.org<mailto:uri-review@ietf.org>>.

I think the current state of play is that webfinger can be used with any URI type e.g. mailto: http: acct: etc. acct: is recommended in the RFC.

-MSK

_______________________________________________
apps-discuss mailing list
apps-discuss@ietf.org<mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email