Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question
"Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> Wed, 27 June 2012 20:32 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 37F7921F859A for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:32:36 -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 O4KPZ+zjTKVL for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:32:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dublin.packetizer.com (dublin.packetizer.com [75.101.130.125]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3226421F858A for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:32:34 -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 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; d=packetizer.com; 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" <paulej@packetizer.com>
To: 'John Bradley' <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>, 'Bob Wyman' <bob@wyman.us>
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> <CAA1s49U0eDb_NJgW8HZMqm41=sPQXi6azqX3Q=0eWk=_mZ_zMg@mail.gmail.com> <CBF965E9-46B3-4D05-ADBC-5E2754A91732@ve7jtb.com>
In-Reply-To: <CBF965E9-46B3-4D05-ADBC-5E2754A91732@ve7jtb.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:32:04 -0400
Message-ID: <041801cd54a3$eab957b0$c02c0710$@packetizer.com>
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: 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 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: http://packetizer.com/acct/ <http://packetizer.com/acct/%3cuser_id> <user_id> 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 namespace. We need something predictable and simple. acct:paulej@packetizer.com is precisely that. Paul From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Bradley Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 10:43 AM To: Bob Wyman Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org; 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 scheme. 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 out. bob wyman On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote: 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. :) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-appsawg-webfinger-06#section-6 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-appsawg-webfinger-06#section-12.1 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 -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ _______________________________________________ apps-discuss mailing list apps-discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss _______________________________________________ apps-discuss mailing list apps-discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
- [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