Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-acct-uri-05.txt

[Graham Klyne <[e-mail]>]

There's also Larry Masinter's old proposal for dated URIs: 
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-masinter-dated-uri-08.html (now expired).

#g
--

On 01/07/2013 20:10, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 7/1/13 12:13 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>> On Monday, July 01, 2013 8:02 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> On 7/1/13 11:19 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>>>> I'm wondering whether it would make sense to add a feature allowing
>>>> associate a date to an account. This would address problems arising
>>> from
>>>> account recycling (think Yahoo). Maybe something like
>>>>
>>>>     acct:[e-mail]?date=20130701
>>>>
>>>> I think at the very least this should be covered in the security
>>>> considerations.
>>>
>>> IMHO we're beyond the point of adding new features to the 'acct' URI
>>> scheme (it has completed Working Group Last Call, IETF Last Call, and
>>> IESG review -- currently I'm working to address one issue about i18n
>>> that arose during IESG review, so that the document can be approved for
>>> publication).
>>
>> Sorry for bringing it up so late in the process.
>
> No worries. It happens. :-)
>
>>> However, a date could be included in an API or protocol that enables
>>> applications to use 'acct' URIs. Is there a reason why this would need
>>> to be included in the URI itself?
>>
>> Sure.. but I think the date should actually be a (perhaps optional) part of
>> the identifier, i.e., the acct URI. That would also make it easier to
>> exchange it between various applications and protocols.
>
> Are you arguing that it would be easier or *safer*?
>
> Also, it seems that your argument would apply to URIs in general (e.g.,
> HTTP URIs for web pages) and not just 'acct' URIs. However, we seem to
> have ways to deal with stale/old HTTP URIs and the like. Thus I wonder
> what in your mind is special about 'acct' URIs in this respect.
>
> Peter
>