Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question
William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com> Tue, 22 May 2012 19:22 UTC
Return-Path: <wmills@yahoo-inc.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 7D7F421F8603 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 May 2012 12:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -16.948
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.948 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.649, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_WHITELIST=-15]
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 tgTmG7YyO0ns for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 May 2012 12:22:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm21.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com (nm21.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com [98.139.52.218]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 643D521F85DD for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 May 2012 12:22:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [98.139.52.192] by nm21.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 May 2012 19:22:16 -0000
Received: from [98.139.52.145] by tm5.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 May 2012 19:22:16 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1028.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 May 2012 19:22:16 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 418060.9211.bm@omp1028.mail.ac4.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 14784 invoked by uid 60001); 22 May 2012 19:22:15 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo-inc.com; s=ginc1024; t=1337714535; bh=4l/7MXkCsM9j5WoC684lE9n23THi9hsRBof3wrsZqPs=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-RocketYMMF:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=YL7NR6bdOP0xZBkaknPE2pIaD0BrhJc7kmB6pTFgPg0KEmTYsCR0t8yjE/0feIIljTvHkhyUZPS9E7VI/jdy9bBR/5AEjSJt52ipm8to6q++MKATOK75AtQRsLjGblQG3GEekW+Hy0bWilHAjtwQwlIkQGylVJos4fH12+1BSTw=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=ginc1024; d=yahoo-inc.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-RocketYMMF:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=pRZ+IJDD/n97Mkm/WC1wCuNUQJ2YdHBBlRbxFrr21ekqLeI64Nc9h2ENAg6V+S4Cxqn65Saric0rS1ob2euaWcf/BmKEKC8z3qZwjTR6gPrHvlEgMoDOJkF35DymHO5S/41VHW+5gv5wl/S6/Sm8a3/1RO7nFuqe/mwY0fPOGpE=;
X-YMail-OSG: sHQs8asVM1k_1fY.Oh9CuuCEPuWAb9nnzDVdzMa4h2r7Ntt pQhJDiySko3wzr05kIT5FyHkIkht.QZ8ZEYFOg4e5bjoD3zY_jpS.3UaYiYV jxjhkWyUDbATKdbvXj8dZKaGu21IY8JyYXbV5EmUsdjzHdOWyidL3FOTYoa0 2Wv3t7bSyGCAcRe1pEOhTezd.M1Mg35JKGjnd2tEg2uaAYjhW_LxRhbF9TTm M5bAdj4rbfNz5_..2c3QobjTi1jU6PjPms4svZBDP7kczrcB9msYbuo1KN9x PiMjtzw9k6E7dqweLPh4TKAVYC2lEx58eweXea1GDeZEEtYR_MkMsuzVpeUA 97jF3CiXZ6dqxwBDxiuCXxG2.itzVcSGUYgTn78uaJ.OYmonqmtF3UCMQQCc 0v6HKeGiw2p06T28ngDi8A6UErM2di9kp2O6JMg836dPX6xaEpw--
Received: from [209.131.62.115] by web31806.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 22 May 2012 12:22:15 PDT
X-RocketYMMF: william_john_mills
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.118.349524
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812B6B6@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B1680429673943665131A7@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <7BCF42BF-127F-478B-A922-1E84D087A0F3@ve7jtb.com> <4FBBE0A6.5040906@stpeter.im> <B3B7CC14-B6E2-40FC-BA84-427CEE96A8E5@ve7jtb.com>
Message-ID: <1337714535.85430.YahooMailNeo@web31806.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 12:22:15 -0700
From: William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com>
To: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <B3B7CC14-B6E2-40FC-BA84-427CEE96A8E5@ve7jtb.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-1055047407-1773125127-1337714535=:85430"
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <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
Reply-To: William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com>
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 19:22:27 -0000
I say leave acct: in the current spec. While I don't think it's strictly necessary for the purposes of WF I don't think it's a significant flaw either. I also think breaking it out into a separate spec at this point is just extra work. John, will WF in it's current form do the job for you? -bill >________________________________ > From: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> >To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> >Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org> >Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 12:08 PM >Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question > >Yes. > >I would have preferred to have this in OAuth as we proposed in Paris. > >I don't have the feeling that this is making much real progress in the general apps area. > >OpenID Connect is nearing completion, Unless some real progress happens it will likely continue to be based on SWD. > >So the question is how best to make progress so there can be a reference-able spec. > >John B. > >On 2012-05-22, at 2:53 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > >> On 5/22/12 12:42 PM, John Bradley 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? :) >> >>> with two specs one for >>> discovery and one for the URI scheme. >> >> Having separate specs seems reasonable. >> >> /psa > >_______________________________________________ >apps-discuss mailing list >apps-discuss@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss > > >
- [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Graham Klyne
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Mike Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Barry Leiba
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Gonzalo Salgueiro
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Gonzalo Salgueiro
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Bob Wyman
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Ted Hardie
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Henry S. Thompson
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Bob Wyman
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Melvin Carvalho
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Henry S. Thompson
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Melvin Carvalho
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Michiel de Jong
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Michiel de Jong
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question SM
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Melvin Carvalho
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Mike Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Bob Wyman
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Mike Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Henry S. Thompson
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question SM
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Melvin Carvalho
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Graham Klyne
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Mike Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Mike Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question SM
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question SM
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Melvin Carvalho
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Melvin Carvalho
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Graham Klyne
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Henry S. Thompson
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Henry S. Thompson
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Mike Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Graham Klyne
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Graham Klyne
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Melvin Carvalho
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Graham Klyne
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Mike Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Mike Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Martin Thomson
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Bob Wyman
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Graham Klyne
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre