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

[William Mills <[e-mail]>]

As susquepedalian as I frequently am, I would change 'discussants' in section 2 to "working group".

section 3 para 3 "It is not assumed that an entity will necessarily be able to interact with a user's account using any particular application protocol, such as email...", I understand this but email isn't a protocol, SMTP is for example.  Maybe change "email" to SMTP there?  


Section 4.3:  '"@" domainpart' should be optional.  It's reasonable to think this might be used with local account identifiers that don/t/need have a domain.


Regards,

-bill





----- Original Message -----
> From: Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>
> To: Graham Klyne <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; Murray S. Kucherawy <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 8:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question
> 
> On 6/28/12 10:53 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>  On 6/28/12 5:09 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
>>>  On 28/06/2012 08:28, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>>>>  Should acct: be rejected, we can simply use mailto: as per SWD. 
>>>>  Similarly
>>>>  you could simply use ?acct=user@host as has been suggested.
>>> 
>>>  Since my comments with reviewer hat on have been cited, I feel I should
>>>  summarize my personal feelings about the specification of the acct: 
> scheme.
>>> 
>>>  *Reviewer hat OFF*
>>> 
>>>  Roughly, I think the acct: scheme does provide a useful, possibly 
> minor,
>>>  purpose that is not served by other URI schemes, and as such it has
>>>  reasonable claim to meet the bar for registering a new scheme.  But I
>>>  think the description of the acct: scheme in the WebFinger document 
> does
>>>  a poor job of explaining this; i.e. I think there is a document quality
>>>  issue here around the acct: scheme registration/specification.
>>> 
>>>  I've had private exchanges with one of the document editors, but I 
> don't
>>>  think my suggestions have been reflected in the current draft.  In
>>>  summary, what I think is not as clear as it should be in the scheme
>>>  registration includes:
>>>  * what does an acct URI identify
>>>  * how are acct URIs allocated; what's the assignment delegation 
> structure?
>>>  * how should an acct: URI be dereferenced?  (e.g. if one were used as a
>>>  link in a web page, how should it be handled?).
>>> 
>>>  I suspect that most of this information can be inferred if one has a
>>>  detailed knowledge of WebFinger protocol, but for an average Joe web
>>>  developer I don't think that's really helpful.
>>> 
>>>  I don't think this is a sufficiently important issue for me to 
> engage
>>>  more actively with the discussion.
>> 
>>  Graham, I think you're right about the fact that these matters are
>>  underspecified. I hereby offer to propose some text, and will do that in
>>  the next few days.
> 
> I went beyond proposing text and decided to write a standalone I-D:
> 
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saintandre-acct-uri/
> 
> Graham, I think that text answers the questions you posed, hopefully in
> an accurate way.
> 
> Feedback is welcome.
> 
> Peter
> 
> -- 
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>