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

"Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> Wed, 27 June 2012 20:43 UTC

Return-Path: <paulej@packetizer.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 EF89421F8637 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 taWnLhtsn7TK for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:43:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dublin.packetizer.com (dublin.packetizer.com [75.101.130.125]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88AAD21F8636 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:43:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sydney (rrcs-98-101-148-48.midsouth.biz.rr.com [98.101.148.48]) (authenticated bits=0) by dublin.packetizer.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5RKh7fK016363 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:43:07 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=packetizer.com; s=dublin; t=1340829788; bh=cqsYZwq9JjgDZfqVezUGq1Z4QgCN4d6JIJHmqtXlEag=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=C+H4SPP08YxGT9p3rM+MNV/3cYw6EQELmkrpAE7hR8M48a8B0EL8YLcs/AmxFj0zw LSqyHwZ5Xw+tnxQvKOLOYAukIhQz8p0YUF3gLOZcUr+hmC4WcN9fsccI/KLOlLk80K faltB7UGDt5KEkH86KjfkjZu5+yF+ZIJF7IMgxsc=
From: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
To: 'Mike Jones' <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>, 'William Mills' <wmills@yahoo-inc.com>, 'Melvin Carvalho' <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, "'Murray S. Kucherawy'" <msk@cloudmark.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394366568FF8@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:43:14 -0400
Message-ID: <043201cd54a5$79f2e170$6dd8a450$@packetizer.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0433_01CD5483.F2E2EF20"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQHACExhZgXedi2je/bJAOmWfz8jRwJIaUzKAl3mCNAA4XnPygFMoDK7lvKWD8A=
Content-Language: en-us
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: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 20:43:12 -0000

I submitted a query to the uri-review list on June 18. So far, there have been no comments on the list.

 

I do not see a reason why the URI review could not be concluded fairly quickly regardless of where it is documented.

 

Now, should the URI review process result in rejecting “acct” then we have to scramble to come up with an alternative.  It cannot simply be left to speculation.  We need a concrete and predictable way of constructing URIs that refer to user accounts.  How do I query a Twitter user’s account?  Flickr? Google+?  (Don’t get me started about the Facebook deciding their email address was my preferred email address...)

 

Paul

 

From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mike Jones
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 11:18 AM
To: William Mills; Melvin Carvalho; Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question

 

Yes, there’s a significant advantage.  It allows the acct: scheme to be approved (or rejected) quickly so that we will know whether it is safe for WebFinger and other specifications to use it.  That approval/rejection can then happen in parallel with refining the discovery specification.

 

Otherwise, we could be in a position where we think we have a final discovery specification, only to learn that it can’t go forward because of objections to the acct: scheme from the W3C and possibly others.  It would be much better for us to know whether that is the case up front.

 

                                                            -- Mike

 

From: William Mills [mailto:wmills@yahoo-inc.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 8:07 AM
To: Mike Jones; Melvin Carvalho; Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question

 

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