IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> Wed, 23 May 2012 16:03 UTC

Return-Path: <melvincarvalho@gmail.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 CB4ED21F8732 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 May 2012 09:03:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 VusYcG0d9hpk for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 May 2012 09:03:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C9FD21F872E for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 May 2012 09:03:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vbbez10 with SMTP id ez10so5704674vbb.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 May 2012 09:03:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=t5GpJZ/dHXxfjjGmmFikO9S++Q8WCh38F+dC0wEqm2Q=; b=LVhnwqE5tLFrpdtz9se4UG3vyDN2KdSnUfUqL+hgZW/+wCpRGBrKbmKjmQVMprbEBc YAxN0+wEWORqRw9S8XaAyfNEl3F1vzkpNZelrRoKP92IIcxyZBAvs7vGAdlcDOZoCcVL yofmn06LZbjYe62i8ufQtvedQvC+GZfR+a/XNnZMpBluoFCTLz9aOL+jHKCOrOm1wWDu IpUkzPZnF+/AbhTF65JG8U2eJh0tRKcw9rgw5vIHie/qA8J2L/2yrjPSCpTwnzJnX/K5 Usv470ClFfyo0OWxULFwzOAGz4HH9N2I4pW7mnbPkfC2Tv2XrA6SBRpVQwcScYnlpc0g Bykg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.222.205 with SMTP id ih13mr3145034vcb.8.1337789021336; Wed, 23 May 2012 09:03:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.38.130 with HTTP; Wed, 23 May 2012 09:03:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <45370D62-B0A0-43F3-831F-BCAFA3959F8F@ve7jtb.com>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812B6B6@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B1680429673943665131A7@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <7BCF42BF-127F-478B-A922-1E84D087A0F3@ve7jtb.com> <4FBBE0A6.5040906@stpeter.im> <B3B7CC14-B6E2-40FC-BA84-427CEE96A8E5@ve7jtb.com> <1337714535.85430.YahooMailNeo@web31806.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4FBBEF0C.1020108@stpeter.im> <45370D62-B0A0-43F3-831F-BCAFA3959F8F@ve7jtb.com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 18:03:41 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhJEWChPS4MS8pa+trqSNsmDS=dbD0gjK4Lu84a_=Lgbiw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
To: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="14dae9cdc94f66b34a04c0b647f0"
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
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, 23 May 2012 16:03:42 -0000

On 22 May 2012 22:35, John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> wrote:

> While minimizing work is valuable.  Minimizing risk is also.
>
> WF should work with any URI.
>

While I dont mind whether WF works with any URI or not.  It should be noted:

http already has discovery (follow your nose)

xmpp i believe already has discovery

mailto: is the gap that it would be good to close

were there any alternate schemes that there is a use case for, other than
the 3 above?


>
> It should not be dependant on acct:
>

+1


>
> acct: will undergo more scrutiny than WF to get approved as a scheme.
>

+1


>
> John B.
>
>
> On 2012-05-22, at 3:54 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>
> > On 5/22/12 1:22 PM, William Mills wrote:
> >> I say leave acct: in the current spec.  While I don't think it's
> >> strictly necessary for the purposes of WF I don't think it's a
> >> significant flaw either.  I also think breaking it out into a separate
> >> spec at this point is just extra work.
> >
> > Probably, yes. Minimizing the work is valuable.
> >
> > /psa
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email