IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Tue, 26 June 2012 13:58 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 9831921F85FB for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 06:58:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.469
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.130, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 XAlUspJYcT5z for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 06:58:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC48521F8503 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 06:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [64.101.72.115] (unknown [64.101.72.115]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 17DCC4005A; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 08:16:12 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4FE9BFF9.9060403@stpeter.im>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:58:17 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120601 Thunderbird/13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812B6B6@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <CAKaEYhKpeayOw4sN4=NYaoXKJQ2e5P+pP8SqJqnt-=Barb=WqA@mail.gmail.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394366568E4F@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394366568E4F@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <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, 26 Jun 2012 13:58:20 -0000

On 6/26/12 7:20 AM, Mike Jones wrote:
> Yes, I believe that the acct: scheme should be considered separately
> from discovery, in its own document.

Personally I have no strong preference, although given that the relevant
sections of draft-jones-appsawg-webfinger-06 take up about a page, it
will be quite a brief specification. :)

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-appsawg-webfinger-06#section-6
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-appsawg-webfinger-06#section-12.1

Do folks think that the 'acct' link relation would belong in the
webfinger spec, in the 'acct' URI spec, or in a separate spec?

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email