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

acct: is NOT "a relatively minor part of a larger project." acct:
identifies a fundamental class of resource on the network that we've
traditionally ignored due to the inappropriate assumption that there was a
binding between accounts and email addresses. However, as we increase the
richness of services available on the network, we see more and more that
such a binding is inappropriate. Not all services that offer accounts do or
should provide email support as well.

Would people be happier with acct: if there were other protocols that used
it? For instance, if we had an "Account Creation and Management Protocol"
that used acct:? (Such a thing and its utility would not be that hard to
imagine....) if so, then for goodness sake, let acct: be created now and
then we can be sure that someone will eventually submit the Internet Draft
to define the full-fledged acct: protocol. But, today, we only need this
one aspect of acct: to be defined. Let it be.

bob wyman

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> John Bradley writes:
>
> > As another poster pointed out schemes have particular semantics and
> > trigger specific browser behaviours.  The scheme needs to answer
> > questions around expected browser behaviour.
>
> Precisely.  I have no detailed interest in webfinger as such, but new
> URI schemes are not something to be created casually.  We have
> guidelines for these things, in the form of RFC 4395 [1], which says,
> _inter alia_,
>
>  "The use and deployment of new URI schemes in the Internet
>   infrastructure is costly; . . . For these reasons, the unbounded
>   registration of new schemes is harmful.  New URI schemes SHOULD
>   have clear utility to the broad Internet community, beyond that
>   available with already registered URI schemes."
>
> Pushing through a new scheme because it's a relatively minor part of a
> larger project which people are keen to get finished doesn't seem like
> the best way to get the necessary careful review that a new scheme
> requires.
>
> ht
>
> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395
> --
>       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
>      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
>                Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
>                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
>  [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged
> spam]
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>