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

"Paul E. Jones" <> Wed, 27 June 2012 21:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAF8011E8093 for <>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:56:04 -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 RCwwDgufd9PB for <>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:56:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65E6C11E808A for <>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:56:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sydney ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5RLtwJI018305 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:55:59 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=dublin; t=1340834159; bh=yy65Jw7LQ08BwV12NP5ThuD2gftMskQV184rUtOgqow=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=t0pi2gRWqWceildcs883AHiSXcj3DbDhAIWZKeujjBaDYOPsImKtfCyg4ESQIoKyF JT37zbZi/fBACe6HVUOHV0QE4PVaHQnnwiXpR+e1IfIuvOmyJP244jCkWXPOJSizBx 2Hn4/rpt1TVbpSF/G6kSUJM7H+hNxduX34t0WE8g=
From: "Paul E. Jones" <>
To: 'Mike Jones' <>, 'John Bradley' <>, 'Peter Saint-Andre' <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <042501cd54a4$f0b054b0$d210fe10$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:56:06 -0400
Message-ID: <048801cd54af$a7be9ef0$f73bdcd0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0489_01CD548E.20AE8590"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQHACExhZgXedi2je/bJAOmWfz8jRwJIaUzKAl3mCNAByYqi0gHWboHrAbhZHT0Bauk3hgJGVCHrAdDReMuWrUgdkA==
Content-Language: en-us
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: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 21:56:04 -0000



I would still like to at least try to keep these together.  The "acct" URI
is a WebFinger URI, so I think it's best to keep them together.  It does not
seem that approval of the RFC is contingent on the approval of the URI
scheme.  It could be registered provisionally at first.  But, I think it
would be approved given that it is already in use and the fact that folks
agree to go forward with the document.


If folks are absolutely opposed to the URI scheme and wish to hold up
WebFinger over it, then we could consider splitting it.  I don't hear that,
though.  I think folks see the value.  The only concern is whether approval
of the URI scheme might hold up approval of the RFC.  That does not seem to
be a problem, but perhaps I'm wrong.


In any case, I'd prefer to split it out only if we absolutely had to.




From: Mike Jones [] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 4:44 PM
To: Paul E. Jones; 'John Bradley'; 'Peter Saint-Andre'
Cc:; 'Murray S. Kucherawy'
Subject: RE: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question


If we separate them, the WebFinger draft would continue to have a normative
dependency on the Acct draft.  But practically then the Acct draft could go
up for working group last call and then IETF last call essentially
immediately after the draft is produced and we'd get a clear up/down
standards decision sooner, rather than later.


If you don't have the time to be editor for that draft, I'm willing to do
so.  It won't take more than a few hours to tease apart.


                                                                -- Mike


From: []
On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:39 PM
To: 'John Bradley'; 'Peter Saint-Andre'
Cc:; 'Murray S. Kucherawy'
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question




That's correct, but not a function of the WebFinger draft, but one of RFC
6415.  The URI template accepts URIs, not bits and pieces of URIs.


We had discussed long ago to use only "", for example,
but the group decided to use URIs and "acct" was the preferred URI scheme to
refer to user accounts.


What I've been doing was trying to document the agreements various folks had
reached on WebFinger.  Don't shoot the messenger.  That said, I don't see a
good reason to backtrack at this point.  The "acct" URI scheme is out in the
wild, its use has a limited scope and specific purpose, etc.


If we were to separate them, we would have the question thrust upon us of
"what URI scheme do I use to refer to paulej's Twitter account?"  It's not
mailto.  It should not be http.  I do agree with the group who reached the
consensus before that "acct" is a reasonable way forward.  Nobody was in
love with "acct", but nothing else worked better.




From: []
On Behalf Of John Bradley
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 11:12 AM
To: Peter Saint-Andre
Cc:; Murray S. Kucherawy
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question


The "resource" parameter is currently a fully qualified URI, and that is
normalized to acct:


The template paramater {uri} also precludes relative URI as near as I can


Perhaps Paul can correct me,  but I think that the request.


GET /.well-known/host-meta.json? HTTP/1.1


Is not allowed by the spec, or be interoperable.    The goal of SWD was to
make the above (slightly different syntax same idea) work.


There are a lot of places in the spec where the acct: uri and normalizing
things to it are baked in.


There are likely also issues with host-meta as that is where the template is


Paul's likely reaction will be that separating them is not trivial, and he
may be correct in that.


On the other hand it is probably the right thing to do, even if it touches a
bunch of things.


John B.


On 2012-06-26, at 10:40 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:


On 6/26/12 8:37 AM, John Bradley wrote:

The current spec requires normalization of bare identifiers i.e.

That would also need to change if we separate the specs.

In what way would it need to change?


Peter Saint-Andre