IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> Tue, 26 June 2012 14:43 UTC

Return-Path: <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
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 85F4221F85D0 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:43:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 kbOVgc9pCR3i for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:43:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gh0-f172.google.com (mail-gh0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2DA521F856D for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:43:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ghbg16 with SMTP id g16so4283325ghb.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:43:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to:x-mailer:x-gm-message-state; bh=riB+ZO/Q6nu3iLD162zfX0QcmSdkG6z2YF7LpT1CGwg=; b=bY/B6klFM5b9FVeDbvZhScnzFCxCAQq+Hl6TQFBKukJBqCumwOY/GVsHm0dAe1thxl doKWAsojMz+qehs72MujJ/rFR9EdX8JOeO0z/HdvRKl9JicvjFvQtJt1Dp4UtiVqbuPT yOafmZgRWxhe13vQ12V9TuJJGTMzWqd8VcBonlfgSZ19z8FjjbS8BLMz17vpCAPj4CKs 29PnhgNRzwlLASnpGRRKprkLeAaY47keret7gMI0+ERK7OFArVtUCvh2r53u3qzB6/Ql 0mk2VWpbcvqkA4MeM/vVtkOSAYkOmm29r1CcujnlQm0Kmnr8VhOzctTj244DM1VjbZNH TOKw==
Received: by 10.236.75.232 with SMTP id z68mr18303398yhd.90.1340721803120; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:43:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.34] (190-20-38-238.baf.movistar.cl. [190.20.38.238]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i67sm140703864yhh.21.2012.06.26.07.43.20 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:43:22 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DA847025-C9E7-4331-A614-711A4F5F04F8"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
From: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA1s49U0eDb_NJgW8HZMqm41=sPQXi6azqX3Q=0eWk=_mZ_zMg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:43:05 -0400
Message-Id: <CBF965E9-46B3-4D05-ADBC-5E2754A91732@ve7jtb.com>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812B6B6@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <CAKaEYhKpeayOw4sN4=NYaoXKJQ2e5P+pP8SqJqnt-=Barb=WqA@mail.gmail.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394366568E4F@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <4FE9BFF9.9060403@stpeter.im> <CAA1s49U0eDb_NJgW8HZMqm41=sPQXi6azqX3Q=0eWk=_mZ_zMg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnENILt9776Zv+2Ph/WGGxiqhNaBVsQ9JengVCN/GE2Bhi+AGpIszjnGvlaiHiX3hNA8PzX
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question
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: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:43:24 -0000

I would change the account link relation to use the http: scheme.  acct: is unnecessary for the link relation, other link relations don't require a new scheme.

That is one of the biggest things people will object to about acct:

Yes if acct: is registered it looks nicer I will give you that.


John B.

On 2012-06-26, at 10:36 AM, Bob Wyman wrote:

> I would leave acct: link relation in the WebFinger spec.
> 
> I can see no utility in breaking it out. Nothing but additional process overhead and more fragmentation of the specs will result from breaking it out.
> 
> bob wyman
> 
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:
> On 6/26/12 7:20 AM, Mike Jones wrote:
> > Yes, I believe that the acct: scheme should be considered separately
> > from discovery, in its own document.
> 
> Personally I have no strong preference, although given that the relevant
> sections of draft-jones-appsawg-webfinger-06 take up about a page, it
> will be quite a brief specification. :)
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-appsawg-webfinger-06#section-6
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-appsawg-webfinger-06#section-12.1
> 
> Do folks think that the 'acct' link relation would belong in the
> webfinger spec, in the 'acct' URI spec, or in a separate spec?
> 
> Peter
> 
> --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email