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

Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> Mon, 02 July 2012 13:42 UTC

Return-Path: <melvincarvalho@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 03C3F21F85F2 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 06:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.542
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.542 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.056, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 2++MFDONXBt3 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 06:42:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9EE121F85E6 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 06:42:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vbbez10 with SMTP id ez10so3885044vbb.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Jul 2012 06:42:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=4ar1Vtaj5tJHYSFpPr8URHfWHEFz8tjDIQLylp67uak=; b=ZxIw7aqmUGTk5lzS8w1zUecpYqJwCXJiRQQuX5GfEBoTw2DQb2K/6ovfyH/41PiStw zNll873gDewCpOAwcpAqU/EFtKtyd6IJlvu37cBkp3knV+ecy6170OS0fVWEzTOp1ABg +kNIQzDS40DxZOaiYxVifMMVAVbG+oHwGGoU8JVaSyUYUy2ZrRtoUCgVyPThXVfzLLSq AI2wcSYvWqz9wBjgc3GEWOaX/FJihdF5Vt43/h4IYnsemytY/8iOtYCHSCal8nZzC/Cc MUaAKOy+WjD3eyakZ8J0nBHGbUBYe4RvkGyOXfPWbO59siZ8j22FddG8S9abCQ3xUnXP JsFw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.28.99 with SMTP id a3mr531156vdh.68.1341236534427; Mon, 02 Jul 2012 06:42:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.166.102 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 06:42:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwgVKKHOTMnzLAnxvXFjb=F+e5acdk12fO5Nj-DjUq5uHQ@mail.gmail.com>
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> <1341157111.65669.YahooMailNeo@web31805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4FF0C90D.2060207@stpeter.im> <4FF18C30.2040902@ninebynine.org> <CAMm+LwgVKKHOTMnzLAnxvXFjb=F+e5acdk12fO5Nj-DjUq5uHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 15:42:14 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhJdbYN4O3GbBYw=mxe3GBL8q51w3YnkR2Y4=1Tn0ztCOA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf3079b92031c05804c3d8f71f"
Cc: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, "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: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 13:42:11 -0000

On 2 July 2012 15:31, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> wrote:

> Relative URIs have existed from the start. That is one of the reasons
> they had to be renamed 'uniform' rather than universal.
>
> The idea is to have a uniform means of representing a name. If that
> name is ambiguous, then the URI form needs to be able to capture that.
>
> I don't think it helps in the slightest to argue over whether
> /fred.html is a URI or a URI fragment. Tim's original proposal is in
> my view rather better thought out than what others have proposed as
> 'improvements'. A name is merely a label for a concept and every URI
> is a name, some happen to be resolvable via a default protocol, others
> not, thats all.
>
>
> Incompletely specified account names are inevitable. If you want to
> use SAML or the like in a Windows environment then the Windows domain
> is not bound to a unique DNS address and picking a random one is only
> going to confuse matters.
>
> An acct: name that does not have a domain name part is going to have
> to be resolved in the same fashion as relative URIs are - by reference
> to context and local state. I don't see anything wrong in that. In the
> context of accounts, a domain name is not completely unambiguous
> unless you also have time.
>
>
> The real world is a fuzzy place. Trying to cope with the fuzzyness and
> ambiguity by wishing it away only leads to broken specs. Accounts have
> only recently come to be understood to have an intrinsic domain
> component. It is better to accept that fact and to build
> infrastructure that addresses the need than to pretend that the need
> can be magicked away.
>
> People who don't have a domain are going to drop it in any case. We
> saw the same thing happen with the news: and nntp: URL. Tim thought
> that the USENET space was uniform and tried to establish a URL that
> didn't have the domain name. Engineers trying to solve real world
> problems then added it back in because there is more to NNTP than
> USENET.
>

I enjoyed reading this.  Just a remark regarding universal vs uniform.

FWIW, Tim is on record saying that he regrets not insisting to the IETF,
that the original 'Universal' should be used in URI, instead of changed
form 'Uniform'.  Depending on which circles you're in, I think informally,
the two terms are used pretty interchangeably, these days.


>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> wrote:
> > On 01/07/2012 23:02, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> >>
> >> On 7/1/12 9:38 AM, William Mills wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Section 4.3:  '"@" domainpart' should be optional.  It's reasonable
> >>> to think this might be used with local account identifiers that
> >>> don/t/need have a domain.
> >>
> >>
> >> Making the domain name of the service provider implicit seems
> >> ill-advised to me. What's the harm of including the domainpart?
> >
> >
> > +1
> >
> > (URIs are intended to be a global namespace.)
> >
> > #g
> > --
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > apps-discuss mailing list
> > apps-discuss@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>
>
>
> --
> Website: http://hallambaker.com/
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>