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

"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Tue, 03 July 2012 03:50 UTC

Return-Path: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
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 2F28E21F8601 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 20:50:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.563
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.563 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.227, 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 mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EYoklXC5zdYF for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 20:50:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F99A21F85D1 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 20:50:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id q633o53F000355 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 12:50:05 +0900
Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 19ac_994c_2d1e89b6_c4c2_11e1_a450_001d096c5782; Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:50:05 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.1]:44694) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <S15DB6C3> for <apps-discuss@ietf.org> from <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 12:50:09 +0900
Message-ID: <4FF26BEA.4000909@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:50:02 +0900
From: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
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> <043201cd54a5$79f2e170$6dd8a450$@packetizer.com> <CAKaEYhL0NS=RZXTdyOMBM_q15P7D1KZ9kgUyMYYB06kA9f0w8Q@mail.gmail.com> <4FEC3B4F.80607@ninebynine.org> <4FEC8BF0.6070605@stpeter.im> <4FEFBF51.5000905@stpeter.im> <4FF18B9C.4010102@ninebynine.org>
In-Reply-To: <4FF18B9C.4010102@ninebynine.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
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, 03 Jul 2012 03:50:05 -0000

On 2012/07/02 20:53, Graham Klyne wrote:

> Some comments:

> == Section 4.4 ==
>
> My understanding is that an acct: URI is intended to be dereferenced
> using the WebFinger protocol. I'm not sure about associated MIME types:
> does WebFinger define any such?

How's that relevant to the acct: scheme? It will be defined in the 
WebFinger spec, and that's good enough, isn't it?

> == Section 4.6 ==
>
> I'm a little unsure about the phrasing "only the WebFinger protocol uses
> the 'acct' URI scheme", but I can't put my finger on any problem or
> offer better phrasing at this time.

The main problem is that it may be totally wrong in a month, or in 10 
years. At the minimum, change it to "at the time of writing of this 
specification, only ...".

Regards,   Martin.