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

Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us> Tue, 22 May 2012 23:30 UTC

Return-Path: <bobwyman@gmail.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 0DB0821F84E4 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 May 2012 16:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 dfB2X8+zBh8X for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 May 2012 16:30:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB26021F84BF for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 May 2012 16:30:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yhq56 with SMTP id 56so7122150yhq.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 May 2012 16:30:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=goIZwLBR+jCRqugpen3hzQhKg7nIBQARo/Gj2t34c8s=; b=dCsHJ3xBmvQd1kl5epq/zMo6PTcBkTt/IpMiW6JprgVPzKqR+3Slxka2GmjISRXxI/ 1X1EKBxbfbI8V5E/h3OIZ0fRJwM3dUrFUjwoMfj+4yNm5clEvZ7pvhFmlYddpPXHBfMT ZdYPqSOz6AxjWGqdNQkvidr5qe6/jz8KqDevYD5XLXEGefiWYhvaZs0wjavwtFSXgQkD 6PlCbM7hhMM0OEFHan8xW0QfUMJPmaYmRnLSv/1PcLFA4PQguaKVIohvI1NpRJz+UBch lDSVqSuh+fvle0NVNERZQaHuKSHb6HfeI2W/wSW7YitxJiXJAx/9a7yHJlS16ah49T9+ xVMw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.190.2 with SMTP id d2mr1320826yhn.48.1337729400414; Tue, 22 May 2012 16:30:00 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: bobwyman@gmail.com
Received: by 10.100.132.14 with HTTP; Tue, 22 May 2012 16:29:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7DC579B3-0B8A-4557-8C16-D2A26E380DF7@cisco.com>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812B6B6@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B1680429673943665131A7@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <7BCF42BF-127F-478B-A922-1E84D087A0F3@ve7jtb.com> <4FBBE0A6.5040906@stpeter.im> <CAC4RtVAD2Q-d-PmM8DjUV=WhdD4Wq_7iteQwrXE2=9B9ryjAUw@mail.gmail.com> <7DC579B3-0B8A-4557-8C16-D2A26E380DF7@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 19:29:59 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 80aYVCAzBjMX3MtMsaWkVJ4qUvc
Message-ID: <CAA1s49W++e=6cw-2-fDZB7CApaOs_obOwcr7sWJiCyKd9Ttm_g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us>
To: Gonzalo Salgueiro <gsalguei@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf305b0cb2b7a14304c0a86557"
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org Discuss" <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: Tue, 22 May 2012 23:30:02 -0000

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 <gsalguei@cisco.com>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
> > 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
>