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

Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us> Tue, 26 June 2012 14:36 UTC

Return-Path: <bobwyman@gmail.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 CC46721F84FC for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:36:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 hPy7-pC1Rkca for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:36:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f53.google.com (mail-yw0-f53.google.com [209.85.213.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 100C521F84FB for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:36:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yhp26 with SMTP id 26so6326086yhp.26 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:36:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Bc6J6Y5jdyIsIB7WBpOI5ZWaWQGRYzW22hCssgfAzT4=; b=F5UmA7/vgJUAKZKUBd4UQCQFDz3c1V+wE6/8sl7nLARB6v5Hb7qpH08uFCsnSglErr 0b2xKW9LJCAKWgfQ7593VkNFx6Z44Ma96dxnLIftnQU3Zux+zjxpv18XPA3ib/jsbnOq Z9Mpqokx1jHRcvvUEWnHevbnTAmzy615U+hmN8aTBHbNaat2ybnIKRfMetIxrV/l79LM +KdJiIT1210mlpGHT/pjuGqbPiZ2ULoOUoei218YLCaW6cnPcdMUyWKWCc0ngWlg55Rm GlVlj29LNmclRO3JNHqJmLB5ZtZwvGz4dvOYrtup4VUPSKou7Vx3+ECs2FnJ5oorYQsH esdQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.175.166 with SMTP id z26mr17820826yhl.56.1340721395641; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:36:35 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: bobwyman@gmail.com
Received: by 10.100.95.20 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:36:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4FE9BFF9.9060403@stpeter.im>
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>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:36:35 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: g20NSEnqX69ZF4gGmEhddQ5sZRc
Message-ID: <CAA1s49U0eDb_NJgW8HZMqm41=sPQXi6azqX3Q=0eWk=_mZ_zMg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf303f635287ac1104c36106c1"
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 14:36:36 -0000

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
>