Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question
"Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> Wed, 27 June 2012 21:56 UTC
Return-Path: <paulej@packetizer.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 BAF8011E8093 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:56:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RCwwDgufd9PB for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:56:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dublin.packetizer.com (dublin.packetizer.com [75.101.130.125]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65E6C11E808A for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:56:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sydney (rrcs-98-101-148-48.midsouth.biz.rr.com [98.101.148.48]) (authenticated bits=0) by dublin.packetizer.com (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; d=packetizer.com; 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" <paulej@packetizer.com>
To: 'Mike Jones' <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>, 'John Bradley' <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>, 'Peter Saint-Andre' <stpeter@stpeter.im>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812B6B6@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <CAKaEYhKpeayOw4sN4=NYaoXKJQ2e5P+pP8SqJqnt-=Barb=WqA@mail.gmail.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394366568E4F@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <4FE9BFF9.9060403@stpeter.im> <035988BC-A9BC-4397-8593-D5F84710ECF3@ve7jtb.com> <4FE9C9D4.5060106@stpeter.im> <49510B16-56BF-4445-8865-4FE3CF6ED99C@ve7jtb.com> <042501cd54a4$f0b054b0$d210fe10$@packetizer.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436656BAA3@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436656BAA3@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:56:06 -0400
Message-ID: <048801cd54af$a7be9ef0$f73bdcd0$@packetizer.com>
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: 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: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 21:56:04 -0000
Mike, 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. Paul From: Mike Jones [mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 4:44 PM To: Paul E. Jones; 'John Bradley'; 'Peter Saint-Andre' Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org; '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: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:39 PM To: 'John Bradley'; 'Peter Saint-Andre' Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org; 'Murray S. Kucherawy' Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John, 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 "paulej@packetizer.com", 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. Paul From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Bradley Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 11:12 AM To: Peter Saint-Andre Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org; 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 tell. Perhaps Paul can correct me, but I think that the request. GET /.well-known/host-meta.json?resource=foo@bar.com HTTP/1.1 Host: bar.com 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 defined. 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. foo@bar.com to acct:foo@bar.com. That would also need to change if we separate the specs. In what way would it need to change? Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
- [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Graham Klyne
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Mike Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Barry Leiba
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Gonzalo Salgueiro
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Gonzalo Salgueiro
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Bob Wyman
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Ted Hardie
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Henry S. Thompson
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Bob Wyman
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Melvin Carvalho
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Henry S. Thompson
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Melvin Carvalho
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Michiel de Jong
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Michiel de Jong
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question SM
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Melvin Carvalho
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Mike Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Bob Wyman
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Mike Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Henry S. Thompson
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question SM
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Melvin Carvalho
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Graham Klyne
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Mike Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Mike Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question SM
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question SM
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Melvin Carvalho
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Melvin Carvalho
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Graham Klyne
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Henry S. Thompson
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Henry S. Thompson
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Mike Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Graham Klyne
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Graham Klyne
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Melvin Carvalho
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Graham Klyne
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Mike Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Mike Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Martin Thomson
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Bob Wyman
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Graham Klyne
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre