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

"Paul E. Jones" <> Wed, 27 June 2012 20:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37F7921F859A for <>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:32:36 -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 O4KPZ+zjTKVL for <>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:32:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3226421F858A for <>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:32:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sydney ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5RKVvtC015978 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:31:57 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=dublin; t=1340829118; bh=94dpecFcbyV9fAJMkFtK6Ori3SWJDBUG98MwDYDm31k=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Pqyi4krCWEzqZ7YrRLp7x+hjBGZX9PDVrWZcwL8tZ72jQS4bnikkutsNNIfI7lr8F 062/WHp6ZVrZXnO5b2G+0PDlotXX/QFlaRnRAu0/iIZqog8EMQOo7IZHUmuG5YUrua HR/74HL7/aVdwTgZJWzzXsm5e1/9o2/Kkh+n+BOQ=
From: "Paul E. Jones" <>
To: 'John Bradley' <>, 'Bob Wyman' <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:32:04 -0400
Message-ID: <041801cd54a3$eab957b0$c02c0710$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0419_01CD5482.63A8A210"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQHACExhZgXedi2je/bJAOmWfz8jRwJIaUzKAl3mCNAByYqi0gNXlyRpAi7E+PWWyYTXsA==
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 20:32:36 -0000

No, no. I think overloading http is a bad idea.


http has a very well-defined purpose in life.  Yes, we could do this: <>


But, that steps on the namespace of domain owners.  I do not think it would
be good practice for RFCs to dictate to domain owners how to use their


We need something predictable and simple. is
precisely that.




From: []
On Behalf Of John Bradley
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 10:43 AM
To: Bob Wyman
Cc:; Murray S. Kucherawy
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question


I would change the account link relation to use the http: scheme.  acct: is
unnecessary for the link relation, other link relations don't require a new


That is one of the biggest things people will object to about acct:


Yes if acct: is registered it looks nicer I will give you that.



John B.


On 2012-06-26, at 10:36 AM, Bob Wyman wrote:

I would leave acct: link relation in the WebFinger spec.


I can see no utility in breaking it out. Nothing but additional process
overhead and more fragmentation of the specs will result from breaking it


bob wyman


On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <>

On 6/26/12 7:20 AM, Mike Jones wrote:
> Yes, I believe that the acct: scheme should be considered separately
> from discovery, in its own document.

Personally I have no strong preference, although given that the relevant
sections of draft-jones-appsawg-webfinger-06 take up about a page, it
will be quite a brief specification. :)

Do folks think that the 'acct' link relation would belong in the
webfinger spec, in the 'acct' URI spec, or in a separate spec?


Peter Saint-Andre

apps-discuss mailing list


apps-discuss mailing list