IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Wed, 27 June 2012 22:16 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 6A45321F8657 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:16:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.524
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 4H5QwohNKPvo for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:16:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DF5E21F8611 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:16:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.9] (unknown [216.17.179.227]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1B1A44005A; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:34:18 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4FEB8631.60703@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:16:17 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812B6B6@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <CAKaEYhKpeayOw4sN4=NYaoXKJQ2e5P+pP8SqJqnt-=Barb=WqA@mail.gmail.com> <4FEA6677.3020705@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <6.2.5.6.2.20120626224534.0a8b4298@resistor.net> <4FEB3060.1040805@ninebynine.org> <1340818030.8183.YahooMailNeo@web31806.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <047501cd54ae$c6848a30$538d9e90$@packetizer.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436656BCF0@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <049e01cd54b0$89925ba0$9cb712e0$@packetizer.com> <6AF4CA7B-A7BC-47C7-8781-63DA7F4DB42D@ve7jtb.com>
In-Reply-To: <6AF4CA7B-A7BC-47C7-8781-63DA7F4DB42D@ve7jtb.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, "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, 27 Jun 2012 22:16:23 -0000

On 6/27/12 4:13 PM, John Bradley wrote:
> It is the W3C TAG that is the most likely to raise a blocking objection.   

Folks, we're into pure speculation here.

In any case, the W3C TAG has no role in the IETF Standards Process. If
individuals who currently serve on the W3C TAG wish to raise concerns
during IETF Last Call, they are free to do so.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email