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

William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com> Tue, 03 July 2012 04:02 UTC

Return-Path: <wmills@yahoo-inc.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 AE45B11E811C for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 21:02:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_DEF_WHITELIST=-15]
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 8p6a7MXXSzsO for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 21:02:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm31-vm4.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm31-vm4.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [72.30.239.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6982611E80EC for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 21:02:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [98.139.215.141] by nm31.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Jul 2012 04:02:09 -0000
Received: from [98.139.212.199] by tm12.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Jul 2012 04:02:09 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1008.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Jul 2012 04:02:09 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 687393.92950.bm@omp1008.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 58357 invoked by uid 60001); 3 Jul 2012 04:02:09 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo-inc.com; s=ginc1024; t=1341288128; bh=z8I+nIVxoYcQkH8EhijHtjVWvh2AT+JIrGBhuZYDunE=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-RocketYMMF:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=V6ny+FjHKZ7YgMlVQmNohK2xNqIC4g6tbr3l2PY5dyo0JgYBy4xBPoK5xe6h1qg0gVA3Yv0jdy2JQjyiSU9MFDi0FTmTGNBxPy0OuRj2NWfUF763jZmc2Q/JcpRK+kF7BeIYeq9PqeXp7A2Y9qgtg94wSUN+1KGrFYz5sBrnacQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=ginc1024; d=yahoo-inc.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-RocketYMMF:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=dUslfSS/kfh5envH8AZVoY5oDWjAMIkArlQnlAIKxTsS8JUQPFI9xYbDiY8tpwc6wxZytHMvjlTwKSDCFM9U5Cc51rLsOMlIfIGXqnSpoDdCw/x9HsBgkiMIH3o6YS2DA0b1cR0WYcGSXksrEnydHVYL/AIbdWZ/5y4gm66cVo8=;
X-YMail-OSG: z6z2L0oVM1mFBJhvjm8G4uMP9tKf.q3WYKbhZ_63vjwhZiL DHtr.NNTAEJnsOvlgFp4O6w6CZvsmtRX5ZsNGHZrxUmmGcudkChswqDFPcVJ isPJBvCV5SDbVkgBCdTnZRE_dj.i6sriIa3mpxWTVcDDnERIp9dbMyykeQms TIJAaBoIy9Z8AimtW5pUdrTZvy2wDtMuYGY_wHhGD1G3c22Y2a6DJVVdY4RL pkwFLC6R0qCQBHIDLiQrheeEAjRfxQ_mTtw353C8EbEljsykJWsu6RlMbmLb gTWGpSYDORRAsXMoA5xQ0X2LiosLh_GwhamKXXEr0gu8JKQDdAu4YovfjRi. T1_1VZ6dohQBTMHaw6.Zxcm2FYRXgIApfzUbEHpmL.g9.clVrqwbjIaRRk4g w8c7Gm0Kbz.APjsit5RE_4CNM8kbRhyulh7yq4RiPagy275o6lpoSd6by
Received: from [209.131.62.115] by web31802.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 02 Jul 2012 21:02:08 PDT
X-RocketYMMF: william_john_mills
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.120.356233
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812B6B6@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.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> <CAMm+LwgVKKHOTMnzLAnxvXFjb=F+e5acdk12fO5Nj-DjUq5uHQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKaEYhJdbYN4O3GbBYw=mxe3GBL8q51w3YnkR2Y4=1Tn0ztCOA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwgazJL2rQjNhnGHgw3kYnR21--RzZ6pWVG5YjVabogRKQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAA1s49W-CpVbWm7zBPq=vWqCu06X33d9hkaDYjL=_9PL93DRvg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+Lwiry8WtaeT+Qjz2HMe4U_m3Uv65vMJa=tS7qqx7L2Jyfg@mail.gmail.c! om> <4FF26CB4.4080203@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <1341288128.53630.YahooMailNeo@web31802.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 21:02:08 -0700
From: William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com>
To: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FF26CB4.4080203@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-1036955950-1144451342-1341288128=:53630"
Cc: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, "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
Reply-To: William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com>
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 04:02:04 -0000

Peter's point about complexity for parsing is significant if we don't have a good reason to need it.  The logic for optional is something like:

-    is there an @ sign?
    -    no: the whole thing is a local user identifier
    -    yes: does the domain part parse correctly as a domain?
        -    no: the whole thing is a local user id
        -    yes: this is a proper compound identifier

Which is kind of a PITA if you don't need it.  If we do feel like we want purely local identifiers we could let the domainpart be empty, with an @ at the end.  That would fix the parsing, but probably make people cringe.




>________________________________
> From: ""Martin J. Dürst"" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
>To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> 
>Cc: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>; "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Murray S. Kucherawy <msk@cloudmark.com> 
>Sent: Monday, July 2, 2012 8:53 PM
>Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question
> 
>After reading Phillip's mails, I agree with him that it makes sense to 
>allow an account id without a domain name. The document should be clear 
>that such use won't work internet-wide, and should be avoided wherever 
>possible. It should also be clear that relative resolution won't work, 
>because it's the wrong syntax.
>
>Regards,    Martin.
>
>On 2012/07/03 7:53, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Bob Wyman<bob@wyman.us>  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker<hallam@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think Tim regrets having been argued out of a lot of positions
>>>> relating to naming that he was subsequently proved right on.
>>>>
>>>> Naming issues are an area where a lot of people have strong opinions
>>>> that really turn out to be a matter of taste rather than grounded in
>>>> semiotics.
>>>>
>>>> The whole business of differentiating URLs and URNs as distinct
>>>> classes was bogus. Once the locator scheme has caching, a URL becomes
>>>> a name. Once an application provides a default action for a name (e.g.
>>>> look it up on Amazon) then a name becomes a locator.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A URI scheme should simply provide people with a well defined syntax
>>>> that allows them to express the concepts that applications that need
>>>> to interoperate need to exchange references to. Trying to decide how
>>>> people should use the identifiers is counterproductive. Trying to
>>>> enforce particular approaches is destructive.
>>>>
>>>> The vast majority of computer systems that use accounts do not bind
>>>> them to domain names. So there is a place in the acct: scheme for
>>>> unbound references.
>>>
>>> It seems to me that an unbound acct: name would be useful only in a "local"
>>> case, not generally useful between otherwise inter-working machines. As I
>>> understand it, the IETF normally limits its scope to those issues that
>>> relate to interworking between systems. Thus, it seems to me that a feature
>>> that is purely local and does not, in fact, facilitate inter-working is one
>>> that should not appear in an IETF document. This, of course, would not
>>> prevent anyone from building a system, or even set of systems, that made
>>> private agreements or used private conventions concerning the use of acct:
>>> names which were unbound or contained no domain part. But, that is not, I
>>> think, a matter which need concern anyone while wearing an IETF standards
>>> hat.
>>
>> That is not the case at all. IETF protocols have always been designed
>> to support local use in addition to Internet use where that makes
>> sense.
>>
>> In this case accounts are currently a locally defined resource and the
>> objective is to make them an Internet resource. The transition from
>> one to the other requires a spec that can work equally well in both
>> circumstances.
>>
>> Deployment is something that should always concern us. Scope arguments
>> are only ever relevant to the question of whether the IETF should
>> consider a problem in the first place. Once the problem is accepted
>> the design must address all the use cases and requirements that
>> reasonably apply whether they are deemed to be in IETF scope or not.
>>
>> And in any case I think that you are completely wrong on the question
>> of scope in the first place. Please provide a citation for your claim
>> if you want to continue the argument.
>>
>_______________________________________________
>apps-discuss mailing list
>apps-discuss@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>
>
>