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

Graham Klyne <> Thu, 28 June 2012 11:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4261821F84DE for <>; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 04:31:59 -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 rP3VwcoZGgDc for <>; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 04:31:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C85421F84F2 for <>; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 04:31:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from <>) id 1SkCwt-0006vW-1Q; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 12:31:47 +0100
Received: from ([] helo=Eskarina.local) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <>) id 1SkCwt-0003h1-0L; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 12:31:47 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 12:09:03 +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: Melvin Carvalho <>, "Paul E. Jones" <>,
References: <> <> <> <> <> <043201cd54a5$79f2e170$6dd8a450$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Oxford-Username: zool0635
Cc: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
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: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 11:31:59 -0000

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 

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.