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

Peter Saint-Andre <> Thu, 28 June 2012 16:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E973321F8449 for <>; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:53:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.483
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.483 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.116, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H-iarRlEqnZJ for <>; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:53:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECC2921F8540 for <>; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:53:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8EE814005A; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 11:11:05 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 10:53:04 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Graham Klyne <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <043201cd54a5$79f2e170$6dd8a450$> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc:, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
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: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:53:08 -0000

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.


Peter Saint-Andre