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

"Paul E. Jones" <> Wed, 27 June 2012 22:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E5A121F861C for <>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:02:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jwew4gOMgjsR for <>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:02:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F399521F8617 for <>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sydney ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5RM2HP8018482 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:02:18 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=dublin; t=1340834538; bh=fWxYFW1+jdmnDrhwF1E9g5iZxOSifBNgHndliSHakAw=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Dk0xTdEwkiplb0szzAfDAiwr86QKDdzvuft7IcBU5boh7Roevw7zV1gTfnAXQnhht EyDsP+wL95Y7dhWgCLupg1o1OkwfygtU3I9rLCIIrw0JlXZ6HsTb/ik1+X1hHStCRp zOEUqBTdB4mqYNtcM077vLbp6jaB6qtpNpA9Dntc=
From: "Paul E. Jones" <>
To: 'Mike Jones' <>, 'William Mills' <>, 'Graham Klyne' <>, 'SM' <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <047501cd54ae$c6848a30$538d9e90$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:02:25 -0400
Message-ID: <049e01cd54b0$89925ba0$9cb712e0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_049F_01CD548F.0281A600"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQHACExhZgXedi2je/bJAOmWfz8jRwJIaUzKAmC+4owBc2Np4gGLJqkJAYQI6cwCpl4PgAEjO00olsGleBA=
Content-Language: en-us
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 22:02:21 -0000

Who in the IESG might raise a concern?  We should talk.


So far, it seems like folks are happy in broad terms, but only concerned
about the unknown.  Worrying does not help us.  Let's get whomever we need
involved right now.




From: Mike Jones [] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 5:54 PM
To: Paul E. Jones; 'William Mills'; 'Graham Klyne'; 'SM'
Subject: RE: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question


At least based upon my experience with the OAuth Core and OAuth Bearer
specs, until IESG/IETF last call, a lot of the IESG members don't raise
issues, and then they're often raised as DISCUSS issues, which block
publication until resolved.  Sometimes these DISCUSS issues also call for
cross-organizational review with the W3C.


Until the acct: URI is actually in a spec in IESG/IETF last call, my
experience says that we really won't know where we stand.  Hence me wanting
to get us there as soon after Vancouver as possible.


                                                                -- Mike


From: []
On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 2:50 PM
To: 'William Mills'; 'Graham Klyne'; 'SM'
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question




I'd say there is a division right down the middle.  It's not clear if there
are more in favor of keeping it there or moving it to a separate document.
However, there is not an overwhelming number on one side.


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.


It seems that those who want to separate it are mostly concerned that it
will delay the RFC publication.  That does not appear to be an issue at all.




From: []
On Behalf Of William Mills
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:27 PM
To: Graham Klyne; SM
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question


Based on the comments to date is there consensus for a path forward?  Will
we leave acct: in the WF draft or split it out?  

If we're splitting it do we have someone stepping up to author the new