IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> Tue, 22 May 2012 20:35 UTC

Return-Path: <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.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 529FB21F8587 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 May 2012 13:35:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 g3T7SJorjxPl for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 May 2012 13:35:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-f49.google.com (mail-qa0-f49.google.com [209.85.216.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2AC021F852C for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 May 2012 13:35:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qabj40 with SMTP id j40so3465665qab.15 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 May 2012 13:35:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer :x-gm-message-state; bh=W49TpefSpsp1H/fcoHmD80FKemiUNpO4imKQoqniobo=; b=S798Liz6pHRSYJKHoRB/rzbtJu5tbJCsZuzkEOpH2p5W7CaRS1i6+l6OpVhopcxDwK RtTvPKB13eQacI3CTG6LVKNzf+6C9sRt7VMbdh86lTFlc3R6lo968xrSV3s6LaHsRT0h Oc72e0RlezxwuI+YA0pYPwpx9PZ2qcJnN0JsKwHFkNhK+GTogZzoEcNrZaQrVHMFD9wx rZ1FnzftIaLJvKFjEgKmZw+5yAhYIpd5Yn09uSn6rpKMdO1oyQhJoF3vEa6YfUCmDDeK 0Z24D2tbw5rs3lbc8ohkIU+hPWFioc1z3IutVEwq8Vzd9XOTxkvsfMb5tfifGPyv1A2M RS1g==
Received: by 10.224.174.79 with SMTP id s15mr1534597qaz.37.1337718921044; Tue, 22 May 2012 13:35:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.6.10] (ip-64-134-70-50.public.wayport.net. [64.134.70.50]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id eg8sm20723699qab.6.2012.05.22.13.35.19 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 22 May 2012 13:35:19 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FBBEF0C.1020108@stpeter.im>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 16:35:17 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <45370D62-B0A0-43F3-831F-BCAFA3959F8F@ve7jtb.com>
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> <1337714535.85430.YahooMailNeo@web31806.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4FBBEF0C.1020108@stpeter.im>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmCi06U4bL0PVrn6q+TQXlUxQxg3sz/0tmCEITNzUyRluL37LpUlsFmSEkhMEJPOzefv865
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
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 20:35:22 -0000

While minimizing work is valuable.  Minimizing risk is also.

WF should work with any URI.

It should not be dependant on acct:

acct: will undergo more scrutiny than WF to get approved as a scheme.

John B.


On 2012-05-22, at 3:54 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> On 5/22/12 1:22 PM, William Mills wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Probably, yes. Minimizing the work is valuable.
> 
> /psa

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email