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

[Melvin Carvalho <[e-mail]>]

On 27 June 2012 03:48, "Martin J. Dürst" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 2012/06/26 21:06, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>> On 22 May 2012 09:22, Murray S. Kucherawy<[e-mail]>  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.


I agree with others that it would be good for acct: to have its own
document.

Webfinger describes itself as scheme "agnostic" which I think is the right
way to be.

This also means that both acct: and webfinger can be evaluated, and further
developed, on their own merits.


>
>
>
>  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 :
>>
>> <[e-mail]>.
>>
>
> Warning: procedural nitpicking ahead!
>
> I think we should be careful about this. [e-mail] 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
> [e-mail] 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:
>
> [e-mail]: (or a dedicated WG if that gets created) General
> discussion of scheme, working towards IETF standardization.
>
> [e-mail]: Comments from URI/IRI experts, check of basic
> criteria for registrability, ...
>
> [e-mail] (the mailing list of the IETF IRI WG): General
> discussion about registration criteria for new IRI schemes, for RFC 4395bis.
>
> [e-mail] (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.
>