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

William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com> Tue, 26 June 2012 15:07 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 60DCB21F847B for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 08:07:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.541
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.541 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.057, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 kugU1+37mCeW for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 08:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm4-vm1.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm4-vm1.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [98.138.91.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4840A21F84CD for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 08:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [98.138.90.56] by nm4.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Jun 2012 15:07:09 -0000
Received: from [98.138.226.169] by tm9.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Jun 2012 15:07:09 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1070.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Jun 2012 15:07:08 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 989969.93367.bm@omp1070.mail.ne1.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 61421 invoked by uid 60001); 26 Jun 2012 15:07:08 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo-inc.com; s=ginc1024; t=1340723228; bh=9rTtidCkdbtonujgaTYvrDrg93FCizPN9dw9VTVi68k=; 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=qO7Or3PTt4KyThQ/4IVORf/xHOuODfoXAeB1DWN8WN8LjiyGSDQ3kWnH6WzTV0BvHbwnyx8rB66tdYulLgiHLbQJNYfT7CCd6KJsCzYi4AYEbPMUPX+2c1ny9YHie8vfFiT8p5JyaOegU7NTfx1fiD+T73gIVy9Ez2qhWhOUeLU=
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=eVfCxm3qaWAJpT91WXUhluNbhJIP4Zddlmc2eGZ4ibK59hTodri2IdXxNPvI29Sa84qN/ermXDF/jyPNP0z+Kg7LCC1b79mFB1o6J4AM0j3PMH1BY0YIaVVsk7kfwUlJzaxDic1XISx/L8rPMQjWDI1T5/dNgDhm05GI9oRiFvc=;
X-YMail-OSG: _ke0QmMVM1lI.vwP7jnOcnFE0bdjqNK9S90Vn.QV8le7T9Z RHiVf5_sddfWKRuM6qd3fXx8CZgKRy0KG9VOWd8jkA7J7VOsApFAsUjE6erX FCut8KynlgnRpE1lCq9QRzDbCIWeOAsnMNJE8KDE37exMOp.J6h4INJN.mmT yxaxwLxuvADlRiqm._sLU.lchBI7RQJ6WoSnwnK9Jnn_ZqJniKJkg8UcVzcq pSRymuUHXkPLkXPHiDm9dVBOrku0PIkOgiEQfXrlwsn4XYo68hptX3.LsQN1 mm3LIQDajZBSGPjBr8LDRKHSJnobBiADQH0yAat0bOsV5dqit3gkUAeFV3e1 jSLFpAsNWGTXikaOrHuwC0L1E3ZX8zQtGh8c.rSmQc9Q7y493zIGMwzN3SFu KfSl3xA.8ldSFNQ3PocJ5FEIZrAx_NQ2gRiqgK0FyfzId26ddyy.nYg--
Received: from [209.131.62.115] by web31801.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 08:07:07 PDT
X-RocketYMMF: william_john_mills
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.120.356233
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812B6B6@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <CAKaEYhKpeayOw4sN4=NYaoXKJQ2e5P+pP8SqJqnt-=Barb=WqA@mail.gmail.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394366568E4F@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <1340723227.60315.YahooMailNeo@web31801.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 08:07:07 -0700
From: William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com>
To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394366568E4F@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-368338466-1512346813-1340723227=:60315"
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <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
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, 26 Jun 2012 15:07:13 -0000

Is there any advantage to breaking it out?  The WF draft depends on it and so can't finalize until acct: does, right?

Will one get done more quickly than the other?




>________________________________
> From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
>To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>; Murray S. Kucherawy <msk@cloudmark.com> 
>Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org> 
>Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 6:20 AM
>Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question
> 
>
> 
>Yes, I believe that the acct: scheme should be considered separately from discovery, in its own document.
> 
>                                                            -- Mike
> 
>From:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Melvin Carvalho
>Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 5:06 AM
>To: Murray S. Kucherawy
>Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question
> 
> 
>On 22 May 2012 09:22, Murray S. Kucherawy <msk@cloudmark.com> wrote:
>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.)
>
>There has been some discussion of this here and on other lists, and the consensus I think is for people to follow the process at :
>
><uri-review@ietf.org>.
>
>I think the current state of play is that webfinger can be used with any URI type e.g. mailto: http: acct: etc. acct: is recommended in the RFC.  
> 
>>-MSK
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>apps-discuss mailing list
>>apps-discuss@ietf.org
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
> 
>_______________________________________________
>apps-discuss mailing list
>apps-discuss@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>
>
>