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

"Martin J. Dürst" <> Wed, 27 June 2012 01:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A80711E8104 for <>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 18:48:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.617
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.617 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.173, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VyLQp97r+Tm4 for <>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 18:48:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ADFE11E8103 for <>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 18:48:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by (secret/secret) with SMTP id q5R1mesD032287 for <>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:48:41 +0900
Received: from (unknown []) by with smtp id 192c_8003_386f489a_bffa_11e1_bfaf_001d096c5782; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:48:39 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([]:36072) by with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <S15D816C> for <> from <>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:48:45 +0900
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:48:39 +0900
From: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Melvin Carvalho <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "" <>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 01:48:53 -0000

On 2012/06/26 21:06, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> On 22 May 2012 09:22, Murray S. Kucherawy<>  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.****

Others have pointed out that it's only a page or two. In my opinion, 
that would strongly suggest a single document.

> 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 :
> <>.

Warning: procedural nitpicking ahead!

I think we should be careful about this. is for 
review of URI/IRI schemes in general. This has a rather low barrier. The 
fact that it gets approved there doesn't mean that it will pass through 
the IETF standardization process. On the other hand, if the IETF 
standardizes it, it has the possibility of overriding the decision on if that should be necessary.
I'm just mentioning this here because we have been through this for 
another URI scheme.

So I think the correct use of mailing lists would be: (or a dedicated WG if that gets created) General 
discussion of scheme, working towards IETF standardization. Comments from URI/IRI experts, check of basic 
criteria for registrability, ... (the mailing list of the IETF IRI WG): General 
discussion about registration criteria for new IRI schemes, for RFC 4395bis. (I'm just mentioning this list because that's where the most 
discussion so far has taken place): General discussion as it relates to 
Web architecture.

Regards,    Martin.