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

Graham Klyne <> Wed, 27 June 2012 17:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F13A21F865C for <>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YC9Q1L-o8RyW for <>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:13:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17BFC21F8653 for <>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:13:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from <>) id 1Sjvnm-00086s-TL; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:13:14 +0100
Received: from ([] helo=Eskarina.local) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <>) id 1Sjvnl-0003SV-56; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:13:14 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:10:08 +0100
From: Graham Klyne <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: SM <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Oxford-Username: zool0635
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 17:13:21 -0000

On 27/06/2012 07:06, SM wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> At 18:48 26-06-2012, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>> Warning: procedural nitpicking ahead!
>> I think we should be careful about this. is for review of
>> URI/IRI schemes in general. This has a rather low barrier. The fact that it
>> gets approved there doesn't mean that it will pass through the IETF
>> standardization process. On the other hand, if the IETF standardizes it, it
>> has the possibility of overriding the decision on if that
>> should be necessary.
>> I'm just mentioning this here because we have been through this for another
>> URI scheme.
> I don't like the idea of mixing registration criteria and the standardization
> process. The authors of the other URI scheme were nice not to turn such a matter
> into an issue. This is the sort of issue which generate controversies. It will
> be detrimental to the IETF as people will walk away.

FWIW, as URI scheme reviewer, I would generally regard achieving standards-track 
status as demonstrating satisfaction of criteria for permanent registration. 
It's one of the strongest expressions of community consensus that I know of.

As far as I'm aware, the URI-review list doesn't make decisions, but it does 
provide a pool of comments that can help to indicate the level of consensus for 
a proposal, and highlight if there are any potential problems that need to be 
addressed.  Considering the role of the reviewer as more concierge than 
gatekeeper, this helps me to make hopefully constructive comments to a submitter.