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

Mike Jones <> Wed, 27 June 2012 20:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAAF311E8089 for <>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:44:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.786
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.786 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.188, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SZDcjcbmtzrw for <>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5290411E8086 for <>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 20:42:52 +0000
Received: from mail200-ch1 (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6713032006F; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 20:42:51 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI;; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -25
X-BigFish: VS-25(zzbb2dI98dI9371I936eIc85fh1418Izz1202hzz1033IL8275bh8275dhz2fh2a8h668h839hd25hf0ah)
Received-SPF: pass (mail200-ch1: domain of designates as permitted sender) client-ip=;; ; ;
Received: from mail200-ch1 (localhost.localdomain []) by mail200-ch1 (MessageSwitch) id 1340829769191922_14289; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 20:42:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BFF5A0044; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 20:42:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 20:42:48 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0309.003; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 20:44:29 +0000
From: Mike Jones <>
To: "Paul E. Jones" <>, 'John Bradley' <>, 'Peter Saint-Andre' <>
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question
Thread-Index: Ac0367W7uVNJxgK+Tf6qpowkmE64wgbqGMQAAAKM2jAAAVwPgAABYvKAAAAVAwAAARlWAAA9u5MAAAAOkqA=
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 20:44:28 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <042501cd54a4$f0b054b0$d210fe10$>
In-Reply-To: <042501cd54a4$f0b054b0$d210fe10$>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436656BAA3TK5EX14MBXC283r_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>, "'Murray S. Kucherawy'" <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 20:44:39 -0000

If we separate them, the WebFinger draft would continue to have a normative dependency on the Acct draft.  But practically then the Acct draft could go up for working group last call and then IETF last call essentially immediately after the draft is produced and we'd get a clear up/down standards decision sooner, rather than later.

If you don't have the time to be editor for that draft, I'm willing to do so.  It won't take more than a few hours to tease apart.

                                                                -- Mike

From: [] On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:39 PM
To: 'John Bradley'; 'Peter Saint-Andre'
Cc:; 'Murray S. Kucherawy'
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question


That's correct, but not a function of the WebFinger draft, but one of RFC 6415.  The URI template accepts URIs, not bits and pieces of URIs.

We had discussed long ago to use only "<>", for example, but the group decided to use URIs and "acct" was the preferred URI scheme to refer to user accounts.

What I've been doing was trying to document the agreements various folks had reached on WebFinger.  Don't shoot the messenger.  That said, I don't see a good reason to backtrack at this point.  The "acct" URI scheme is out in the wild, its use has a limited scope and specific purpose, etc.

If we were to separate them, we would have the question thrust upon us of "what URI scheme do I use to refer to paulej's Twitter account?"  It's not mailto.  It should not be http.  I do agree with the group who reached the consensus before that "acct" is a reasonable way forward.  Nobody was in love with "acct", but nothing else worked better.


From:<> []<mailto:[]> On Behalf Of John Bradley
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 11:12 AM
To: Peter Saint-Andre
Cc:<>; Murray S. Kucherawy
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question

The "resource" parameter is currently a fully qualified URI, and that is normalized to acct:

The template paramater {uri} also precludes relative URI as near as I can tell.

Perhaps Paul can correct me,  but I think that the request.

GET /.well-known/host-meta.json?<> HTTP/1.1


Is not allowed by the spec, or be interoperable.    The goal of SWD was to make the above (slightly different syntax same idea) work.

There are a lot of places in the spec where the acct: uri and normalizing things to it are baked in.

There are likely also issues with host-meta as that is where the template is defined.

Paul's likely reaction will be that separating them is not trivial, and he may be correct in that.

On the other hand it is probably the right thing to do, even if it touches a bunch of things.

John B.

On 2012-06-26, at 10:40 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

On 6/26/12 8:37 AM, John Bradley wrote:

The current spec requires normalization of bare identifiers i.e.<> to
That would also need to change if we separate the specs.

In what way would it need to change?


Peter Saint-Andre