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

Mike Jones <> Tue, 22 May 2012 18:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A42E321F85DD for <>; Tue, 22 May 2012 11:35:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j-t7Dwi4boL3 for <>; Tue, 22 May 2012 11:35:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A44A021F8475 for <>; Tue, 22 May 2012 11:35:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Tue, 22 May 2012 18:35:31 +0000
Received: from mail68-db3 (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65698E045B; Tue, 22 May 2012 18:35:31 +0000 (UTC)
X-SpamScore: -22
X-BigFish: VS-22(zz9371Ic85fh148cIzz1202hzz1033IL8275bh8275dhz2fh2a8h668h839hd25hf0ah)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI;; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
Received-SPF: pass (mail68-db3: domain of designates as permitted sender) client-ip=;; ; ;
Received: from mail68-db3 (localhost.localdomain []) by mail68-db3 (MessageSwitch) id 1337711728753530_31655; Tue, 22 May 2012 18:35:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9DDF4000ED; Tue, 22 May 2012 18:35:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Tue, 22 May 2012 18:35:28 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.005; Tue, 22 May 2012 18:35:31 +0000
From: Mike Jones <>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: The acct: scheme question
Thread-Index: Ac0367W7uVNJxgK+Tf6qpowkmE64wgAXWDww
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 18:35:31 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B1680429673943665131A7TK5EX14MBXC284r_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: Tue, 22 May 2012 18:35:48 -0000

Architecturally, I believe that discovery and the acct: scheme are distinct, therefore I believe they should be separate RFCs, but I won't lose sleep over it if the working group decides otherwise.  I believe that both documents will actually progress faster if discussions about one feature don't become entangled in the other one.

I STRONGLY believe that discovery should have its own working group.  Thanks for bringing that possibility up, Murray.  If acct: is split from discovery, I'm fine with it being in the same working group.

Thanks for asking the questions, Murray.

                                                                -- Mike

From: [] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 12:23 AM
Subject: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question

As we prepare to bring webfinger into appsawg, it looks a lot like there's substantial discussion just on the point of the proposed "acct:" scheme.

So, a question for those tracking the discussion:  Is this a big enough topic that it should be split into its own document?  This would be a useful thing to decide as we figure out how to handle the work once it enters working group mode.

(This by itself has me wondering if we should revisit the conversation about whether webfinger needs its own working group, but I'll leave it to Barry and Pete to make that call.)