Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question
Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Mon, 02 July 2012 13:31 UTC
Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.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 E55B221F85DB for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 06:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.483
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.483 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.116, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 pF2f4oM9-DhH for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 06:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18A2221F85D3 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 06:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so9554926obb.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Jul 2012 06:31:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=x75eS5sRB8ymzgCY95FucFdeFGU+oHZlx89HsccwiWE=; b=Q01clwVgW2Lrgx+UDCa7k5kN6sePF5Z39uMReDRswKS7fLnMsuWiNUaj98JmjIGrCU vFxpDMCHv0T/fI51Cyi1cKeTGUWgG1jVa2N/hhnextBOtGJ6jTaWL5h/LklPtPBNB9I1 fkEGPwlAssTJuAek0g/GgHweVXNV/6qRqGThZI+2TKoHOgj0ESPcUvKOJ/bDpEKs7GvT tCtEqtGSYgFVbKb5/HZLJc9ZkgbR2QaBx0n26mAl3okx2s5nAz9gf5yyqOngS9vQ8l1N zg7skOF1WXdrK7O8u1LIj8Ofd3NF+QKn5Q282JWF3FUC+jD6yWYJOmRtpBfnf+3JzRq/ WY4A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.12.37 with SMTP id v5mr13633664oeb.25.1341235869911; Mon, 02 Jul 2012 06:31:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.182.64.166 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 06:31:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4FF18C30.2040902@ninebynine.org>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812B6B6@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <CAKaEYhKpeayOw4sN4=NYaoXKJQ2e5P+pP8SqJqnt-=Barb=WqA@mail.gmail.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394366568E4F@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <1340723227.60315.YahooMailNeo@web31801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394366568FF8@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <043201cd54a5$79f2e170$6dd8a450$@packetizer.com> <CAKaEYhL0NS=RZXTdyOMBM_q15P7D1KZ9kgUyMYYB06kA9f0w8Q@mail.gmail.com> <4FEC3B4F.80607@ninebynine.org> <4FEC8BF0.6070605@stpeter.im> <4FEFBF51.5000905@stpeter.im> <1341157111.65669.YahooMailNeo@web31805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4FF0C90D.2060207@stpeter.im> <4FF18C30.2040902@ninebynine.org>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 09:31:09 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwgVKKHOTMnzLAnxvXFjb=F+e5acdk12fO5Nj-DjUq5uHQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <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: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 13:31:06 -0000
Relative URIs have existed from the start. That is one of the reasons they had to be renamed 'uniform' rather than universal. The idea is to have a uniform means of representing a name. If that name is ambiguous, then the URI form needs to be able to capture that. I don't think it helps in the slightest to argue over whether /fred.html is a URI or a URI fragment. Tim's original proposal is in my view rather better thought out than what others have proposed as 'improvements'. A name is merely a label for a concept and every URI is a name, some happen to be resolvable via a default protocol, others not, thats all. Incompletely specified account names are inevitable. If you want to use SAML or the like in a Windows environment then the Windows domain is not bound to a unique DNS address and picking a random one is only going to confuse matters. An acct: name that does not have a domain name part is going to have to be resolved in the same fashion as relative URIs are - by reference to context and local state. I don't see anything wrong in that. In the context of accounts, a domain name is not completely unambiguous unless you also have time. The real world is a fuzzy place. Trying to cope with the fuzzyness and ambiguity by wishing it away only leads to broken specs. Accounts have only recently come to be understood to have an intrinsic domain component. It is better to accept that fact and to build infrastructure that addresses the need than to pretend that the need can be magicked away. People who don't have a domain are going to drop it in any case. We saw the same thing happen with the news: and nntp: URL. Tim thought that the USENET space was uniform and tried to establish a URL that didn't have the domain name. Engineers trying to solve real world problems then added it back in because there is more to NNTP than USENET. On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> wrote: > On 01/07/2012 23:02, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> >> On 7/1/12 9:38 AM, William Mills wrote: >>> >>> Section 4.3: '"@" domainpart' should be optional. It's reasonable >>> to think this might be used with local account identifiers that >>> don/t/need have a domain. >> >> >> Making the domain name of the service provider implicit seems >> ill-advised to me. What's the harm of including the domainpart? > > > +1 > > (URIs are intended to be a global namespace.) > > #g > -- > > _______________________________________________ > apps-discuss mailing list > apps-discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
- [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