Re: [apps-discuss] The webfinger and the acct: scheme documents

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 7/2/12 10:29 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

> The authors of draft-jones-appsawg-webfinger are invited to submit
> draft-ietf-appsawg-webfinger-00, and we'll approve it.
> 
> Now, a question: The "acct:" scheme URI work is an offshoot of
> webfinger.  PSA has recently posted a document that separates that work
> out.  So what is working group consensus: Should these be processed as
> two documents in parallel (and should APPSAWG take them on), or should
> they be processed as a single document?

Clarifying question: since the chairs have invited the authors of the
WebFinger I-D to submit it as a WG item, I assume that the question
"should APPSAWG take them on" does not apply to the WebFinger I-D, but
only to the 'acct' URI I-D.

FWIW, I authored a separate spec for the 'acct' URI scheme because I
understood from the list discussion that the 'acct' URI *could* be used
by protocols other than WebFinger. If that is true, then it seems to me
preferable to work on the WebFinger protocol and the 'acct' URI scheme
as separate documents. If that is false, then I think they belong in the
same specification. Personally I'm unclear as to whether the 'acct' URI
scheme is tightly coupled to WebFinger protocol, so I think we need to
figure that out first before deciding whether to proceed with two
documents or one.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/