IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] [OAUTH-WG] draft-jones-appsawg-webfinger-04

"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Fri, 18 May 2012 10:38 UTC

Return-Path: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
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 915F121F8665 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 May 2012 03:38:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -97.938
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.938 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.048, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6, MANGLED_YOUR=2.3, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 w4dHE62ucZ5q for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 May 2012 03:38:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 540FA21F848E for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 May 2012 03:38:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id q4IAcMCZ031853 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 May 2012 19:38:22 +0900
Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 7db0_4435_9757c920_a0d5_11e1_97e8_001d096c5782; Fri, 18 May 2012 19:38:22 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.1]:40275) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <S15C71B0> for <apps-discuss@ietf.org> from <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>; Fri, 18 May 2012 19:38:25 +0900
Message-ID: <4FB62693.9040206@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 19:38:11 +0900
From: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810E4CA@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <CAKaEYhKx0-psqSzLVHuiNiwvWXw28Fo1gDxr5u_Gsv5+K4wy0w@mail.gmail.com> <069A5A7D-16DE-463A-B857-9A39EA2F46DC@ve7jtb.com> <CA+aD3u3u82BfZWgFNUUhzt1QuJh+V=AXjV+JChc9Qm=q-sZorQ@mail.gmail.com> <5D4CF0B8-55C2-4741-AA51-5E93256AEB19@ve7jtb.com> <00f601cd32ee$cd2ebd10$678c3730$@packetizer.com> <4FB3545F.4050408@ninebynine.org> <CAKaEYh++Zdtzo2V1LxpjqNFK6Cw6XpXDwE97fQeAk0dk2P_+ug@mail.gmail.com> <4FB4F784.8040409@ninebynine.org> <39D4A035-89F9-4EE8-BAEE-0BDF2B11F291@ve7jtb.com>
In-Reply-To: <39D4A035-89F9-4EE8-BAEE-0BDF2B11F291@ve7jtb.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [OAUTH-WG] draft-jones-appsawg-webfinger-04
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: Fri, 18 May 2012 10:38:24 -0000

On 2012/05/17 23:43, John Bradley wrote:

> I can't see the requirement for a new scheme based simply on needing a new link relationship.
>
> Someone will also eventually notice that we are effectively duplicating the existing http: syntax for naming a user at a domain "http://jbradley@foo.com".

No. In http://jbradley@foo.com, the "jbradley" part is (or mostly, was) 
used to indicate that you are *connecting* to foo.com as user jbradley. 
This is of no use if others want to find information *about* you(r account).

> If acct: is used simply as an identifier, that is never intended for a user to type then the argument for a new scheme is weak.
>
> If acct: is intended to be a new name resolution protocol (It is) then it is causing namespace fragmentation and breaking the semantic web.
>
> I have had the W3C TAG intervene on OASIS standards wanting to register a new scheme so I am cautious.

I haven't followed that debate closely, but from what I have seen, there 
are HUGE differences between XRI and acct. acct has a reasonably narrow 
purpose. XRI, on the other hand, had very far-reaching goals, and was 
presented as "URIs done better", with a lot of hype.

> WF should start the registration process for acct: now to enable the inevitable wider debate.

Yes, please start. I don't expect too many problems. If you look at the 
list of registered schemes, there are already many.

Regards,    Martin.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email