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

SM <> Wed, 27 June 2012 06:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 557DB11E8102 for <>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:23:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.42
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.42 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.121, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pH6hb-0reI5o for <>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:23:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 292B211E80C5 for <>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:23:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (IDENT:sm@localhost []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5R6N0W4006846; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:23:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1340778188; bh=RIA0UnScuEKAPhcF3OSX3ZDLyNOfVvIFnb0tBTcqBD4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=vThzU2Qg7jbGexLQYj2/vHm3ZAsJDxNkt7kA2mTWfjfPM05uBfwRvIE+Ezc1D/G3w 4CmqSupUtSvqtteXmzThQtUDHcfW0u0RY/3gqSDuz823ptiFGQ7dDjtLLvVjM9nDHs aRkaAXQ6BOMyv6VS3waZnjfTcKhlVCQlrx4IjWV0=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1340778188;; bh=RIA0UnScuEKAPhcF3OSX3ZDLyNOfVvIFnb0tBTcqBD4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=BYelDQFwguQWqePUxYkF0OhWIrW44mCqrHGU8Ahkg22xmpVwtLys2oswKAIxklRol ba56D/uQRVxw4eNP8cOWtwj2TWMTEDhSiULFP0Loz8vzE8m3lwPniY++q2w9SjYboJ P1TQA65s6zwYRS6OpmEGkdlCZSBo+iNKL57843HU=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:06:54 -0700
To: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <>
From: SM <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 06:23:13 -0000

Hi Martin,
At 18:48 26-06-2012, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>Warning: procedural nitpicking ahead!
>I think we should be careful about this. 
> is for review of URI/IRI 
>schemes in general. This has a rather low 
>barrier. The fact that it gets approved there 
>doesn't mean that it will pass through the IETF 
>standardization process. On the other hand, if 
>the IETF standardizes it, it has the possibility 
>of overriding the decision on if that should be necessary.
>I'm just mentioning this here because we have 
>been through this for another URI scheme.

I don't like the idea of mixing registration 
criteria and the standardization process.  The 
authors of the other URI scheme were nice not to 
turn such a matter into an issue.  This is the 
sort of issue which generate controversies.  It 
will be detrimental to the IETF as people will walk away.