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

[John Bradley <[e-mail]>]

URN don't have authority portions, so may not be a good fit.

The authority segment is necessary to bootstrap the resolution process.

How about we do the core spec with http://$username@$domain

If we are not intending to have a special protocol handler then http: should work just fine.

The link relationship doesn't need to be a custom scheme.

Whatever Connect references  is going to be around for a long time,  later could be awkward.

John B.

On 2012-05-22, at 7:58 PM, William Mills wrote:

> How about we go with the current draft, and if we hit a significant headwind, we break it out and deal with it separately.
> 
> If we hit a headwind we couldgo with a few more characters and use urn:acct:$username@$domain. Probably easier to register with IANA a new URN namespace and we're done.
> 
> -bill
> 
> 
> 
> From: Bob Wyman <[e-mail]>
> To: Gonzalo Salgueiro <[e-mail]> 
> Cc: Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>; "[e-mail] Discuss" <[e-mail]> 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 4:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question
> 
> I would very much prefer that we do NOT create a new WG but rather proceed with acct: as part of WebFinger.
> 
> WebFinger is designed to work with any URI -- but it needs acct: since what acct: does is not currently done by any other URI scheme.
> 
> bob wyman
> 
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Gonzalo Salgueiro <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On May 22, 2012, at 3:23 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> 
> >>> I would prefer a separate working group,
> >>
> >> Spinning up a working group is a lot of work (writing the charter,
> >> probably organizing a BoF session at a future IETF meeting, finding
> >> chairs, etc.). Are you volunteering to help with that? :)
> >
> > My sense is that given the discussion so far, we can do this without a
> > BoF.  And I'm starting to be more and more convinced that we need to
> > take this out of AppsAWG and give it its own working group (though I'm
> > not certain of that yet, and I haven't talked with Pete about it).
> >
> > That still means we need a draft charter, probably at least a couple
> > of weeks for discussion and bashing of it, then at least three or four
> > weeks for the IESG to process it.  Let's say 6 to 8 weeks, if it goes
> > efficiently and smoothly.  Add time for glitches if they happen.
> >
> > If the document can be done in less than, say, 12 to 15 weeks, and if
> > can get adequate attention, then we should finish it here.  But the
> > discussion needs to converge.  If it needs more focused attention in
> > order to converge, then that's a reason to pull it off into a WG of
> > its own.
> 
> After having just completed the long drawn out process of authoring a controversial charter that was agreeable to all and finally forming a WG, I would really prefer if we can avoid all that overhead and delay.  We all share the common goal of a robust discovery protocol delivered as expeditiously as possible. I feel we have come a long way given that both camps (SWD and WF) have made concessions and came to an agreeable initial state for a WG draft, along with the maturity of the WF draft and the amount of review and scrutiny it has received from this group I think this is possible if we all remain open-minded and willing to work together.  As far as the acct: URI, I get the sense that most folks don't mind the URI scheme itself. It seems that that the real point of contention is whether it should be split from the original WF doc or not.
> 
> IMO a strong case can be made for the acct: URI scheme being part of the core WF spec considering the existence of 6415 and its foundational nature for the proposed discovery mechanism and how it is entirely URI driven. Further considering the added work and delay in removing acct: from the current WF spec and how it is already implemented and in the wild,  I'd prefer not to split them at this point. I'm happy to defer to group consensus, though.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Gonzalo
> 
> 
> >
> > Barry
> > _______________________________________________
> > apps-discuss mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss