IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Tue, 03 July 2012 15:19 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 6D02511E8154 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 08:19:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.493
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.493 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.106, 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 GI-A+zhZ8s3Z for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 08:19:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81A7D11E8085 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 08:19:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [64.101.72.115] (unknown [64.101.72.115]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8E2484005A; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 09:37:45 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4FF30D80.6010208@stpeter.im>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 09:19:28 -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: Graham Klyne <GK@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> <4FF18B9C.4010102@ninebynine.org> <4FF1C243.2000008@stpeter.im> <4FF2B820.5040301@ninebynine.org>
In-Reply-To: <4FF2B820.5040301@ninebynine.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 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: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 15:19:22 -0000

On 7/3/12 3:15 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
> On 02/07/2012 16:46, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> >  == Section 4.4 ==
>>> >
>>> >  My understanding is that an acct: URI is intended to be dereferenced
>>> >  using the WebFinger protocol.
>> My understanding is that the WebFinger protocol defines one way for
>> 'acct' URIs to be dereferenced, but that other protocols might also
>> define such ways in the future. If I am wrong about that and 'acct' is
>> tightly coupled with WebFinger, then we need to make that clear in the
>> 'acct' URI spec.
> 
> If it's not the case, then I think a key reason for acct: being useful
> as a distinct URI scheme is scuppered.

Precisely why I asked the question. :)

Peter

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email