IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> Sun, 01 July 2012 03:35 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 F389421F84CD for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Jun 2012 20:35:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.708
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.708 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.841, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_TOWRITE=1.05]
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 ms+k5Xg7omNH for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Jun 2012 20:35:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tx2outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (tx2ehsobe001.messaging.microsoft.com [65.55.88.11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB7E921F84A0 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 Jun 2012 20:35:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail252-tx2-R.bigfish.com (10.9.14.249) by TX2EHSOBE004.bigfish.com (10.9.40.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Sun, 1 Jul 2012 03:33:37 +0000
Received: from mail252-tx2 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail252-tx2-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF7391B4072D; Sun, 1 Jul 2012 03:33:36 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.8; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:TK5EX14MLTC102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -30
X-BigFish: VS-30(zzbb2dI98dI9371I542M1432I1418Izz1202hzz1033IL8275dhz2fh2a8h668h839h944hd25hf0ah)
Received-SPF: pass (mail252-tx2: 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=TK5EX14MLTC102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ; icrosoft.com ;
Received: from mail252-tx2 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail252-tx2 (MessageSwitch) id 1341113614944162_31485; Sun, 1 Jul 2012 03:33:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from TX2EHSMHS024.bigfish.com (unknown [10.9.14.238]) by mail252-tx2.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9F0F800045; Sun, 1 Jul 2012 03:33:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from TK5EX14MLTC102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.8) by TX2EHSMHS024.bigfish.com (10.9.99.124) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Sun, 1 Jul 2012 03:33:34 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.2.53]) by TK5EX14MLTC102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.79.180]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.005; Sun, 1 Jul 2012 03:35:26 +0000
From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question
Thread-Index: Ac0367W7uVNJxgK+Tf6qpowkmE64wgbqGMQAAAKM2jAAA8N6gAAAR9EQAD2/6AAAFom7AAAHs0aAAAwDwAAAehjTgAAA6cLw
Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2012 03:35:25 +0000
Message-ID: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394366570258@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <4FEFBF51.5000905@stpeter.im>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.33]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
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: Sun, 01 Jul 2012 03:35:30 -0000

Bravo!!!

-----Original Message-----
From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Saint-Andre
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 8:09 PM
To: Graham Klyne
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org; Murray S. Kucherawy
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question

On 6/28/12 10:53 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 6/28/12 5:09 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
>> On 28/06/2012 08:28, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>>> Should acct: be rejected, we can simply use mailto: as per SWD. 
>>> Similarly
>>> you could simply use ?acct=user@host as has been suggested.
>>
>> Since my comments with reviewer hat on have been cited, I feel I 
>> should summarize my personal feelings about the specification of the acct: scheme.
>>
>> *Reviewer hat OFF*
>>
>> Roughly, I think the acct: scheme does provide a useful, possibly 
>> minor, purpose that is not served by other URI schemes, and as such 
>> it has reasonable claim to meet the bar for registering a new scheme.  
>> But I think the description of the acct: scheme in the WebFinger 
>> document does a poor job of explaining this; i.e. I think there is a 
>> document quality issue here around the acct: scheme registration/specification.
>>
>> I've had private exchanges with one of the document editors, but I 
>> don't think my suggestions have been reflected in the current draft.  
>> In summary, what I think is not as clear as it should be in the 
>> scheme registration includes:
>> * what does an acct URI identify
>> * how are acct URIs allocated; what's the assignment delegation structure?
>> * how should an acct: URI be dereferenced?  (e.g. if one were used as 
>> a link in a web page, how should it be handled?).
>>
>> I suspect that most of this information can be inferred if one has a 
>> detailed knowledge of WebFinger protocol, but for an average Joe web 
>> developer I don't think that's really helpful.
>>
>> I don't think this is a sufficiently important issue for me to engage 
>> more actively with the discussion.
> 
> Graham, I think you're right about the fact that these matters are 
> underspecified. I hereby offer to propose some text, and will do that 
> in the next few days.

I went beyond proposing text and decided to write a standalone I-D:

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saintandre-acct-uri/

Graham, I think that text answers the questions you posed, hopefully in an accurate way.

Feedback is welcome.

Peter

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




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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email