IETF Logo Mail Archive

[apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Tue, 22 May 2012 07:23 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.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 195CD11E8076 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 May 2012 00:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 1TWBGqDXpm36 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 May 2012 00:23:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35B2221F8464 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 May 2012 00:23:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.26]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id CvNu1j0010as01C01vNuQd; Tue, 22 May 2012 00:22:54 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=MOXiabll c=1 sm=1 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:17 a=ldJM1g7oyCcA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=b6nfwRhkAAAA:8 a=WKxsu1bB4aIhcfB6WuYA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=yMhMjlubAAAA:8 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=Byw952pnaDXL0P6hTvMA:9 a=gKO2Hq4RSVkA:10 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10 a=hTZeC7Yk6K0A:10 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:117
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas902.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::54de:dc60:5f3e:334%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Tue, 22 May 2012 00:22:54 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: The acct: scheme question
Thread-Index: Ac0367W7uVNJxgK+Tf6qpowkmE64wg==
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 07:22:53 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812B6B6@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [67.160.203.60]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812B6B6exchmbx901corpclo_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1337671374; bh=YKRKLyZOcOC1mEBl++UZw2F8netfd/zhlc0ULyKSFMM=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=usogk5EFXHB2F2mEE9gsgyFBwwgFeZ4pHKHsFJ/s2tFR+6O7+RXsZz42N/CQ1kLk6 f9klQCJDxq9FYDKK1B/Gb3kNNeHfQYR4D86phIz0q0Nuwn0NiEH+artEEWVLNcsUAq G2qKbxTRM8ipTSEpA1+c2oz+K/TYGheMNW6SekrM=
Subject: [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, 22 May 2012 07:23:28 -0000

As we prepare to bring webfinger into appsawg, it looks a lot like there's substantial discussion just on the point of the proposed "acct:" scheme.

So, a question for those tracking the discussion:  Is this a big enough topic that it should be split into its own document?  This would be a useful thing to decide as we figure out how to handle the work once it enters working group mode.

(This by itself has me wondering if we should revisit the conversation about whether webfinger needs its own working group, but I'll leave it to Barry and Pete to make that call.)

-MSK

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status