Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question
Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 23 May 2012 00:40 UTC
Return-Path: <ted.ietf@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 DBF1F21F8647 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 May 2012 17:40:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 Zh2GedwWQhnu for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 May 2012 17:40:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vc0-f172.google.com (mail-vc0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB91C21F863D for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 May 2012 17:40:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vcqp1 with SMTP id p1so871248vcq.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 May 2012 17:40:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8TDx/wOwpBqMh6xPBvuUESNnkzxlQmCVwthTrYDGRnk=; b=r8ppA2rqRraYC9Gkq4JVVUv8L3DsyQ3sYNH1+VZfsC3/nQnN0X1aZpZSQx0VWgtqQL +ldayG2Q4+Qxo7QziPUdf7P9JLh5mluvhWoPossF0G6vgX7GGSQxEG6OmnBp2YvCyiHX yGlMkxDZY9wI+3299bIW4qpyNjRbEOeJXwWxCEiLUWfg1G4oZL6iTTF2DSMtZerf0RYu 515NVOyXAwVu2nv8CM3rBdQqXAT5y0o6AbNHMTCykjwU7ekRM9MWxMlTekhf1eMf464g zKt1JmtGiI9tQEiqFJQUTBfsxcDbPEkhQRJZE1BGwnqpwMrOIjW8NWRZWmCDdG/CnVcv KZpw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.21.99 with SMTP id u3mr2801318vde.56.1337733648241; Tue, 22 May 2012 17:40:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.162.99 with HTTP; Tue, 22 May 2012 17:40:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1337731132.15399.YahooMailNeo@web31811.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812B6B6@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B1680429673943665131A7@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <7BCF42BF-127F-478B-A922-1E84D087A0F3@ve7jtb.com> <4FBBE0A6.5040906@stpeter.im> <CAC4RtVAD2Q-d-PmM8DjUV=WhdD4Wq_7iteQwrXE2=9B9ryjAUw@mail.gmail.com> <7DC579B3-0B8A-4557-8C16-D2A26E380DF7@cisco.com> <CAA1s49W++e=6cw-2-fDZB7CApaOs_obOwcr7sWJiCyKd9Ttm_g@mail.gmail.com> <1337731132.15399.YahooMailNeo@web31811.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 17:40:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMASdwBtsd_WfCAneTR89FXJoO77ZwHpHjiHhXAQeipQ1A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org Discuss" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
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: Wed, 23 May 2012 00:40:50 -0000
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 4:58 PM, William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com> wrote: > How about we go with the current draft, and if we hit a significant > headwind, we break it out and deal with it separately. > > If we hit a headwind we couldgo with a few more characters and use > urn:acct:$username@$domain. Probably easier to register with IANA a new URN > namespace and we're done. > > -bill > Actually, a URN namespace will not work here, because the domain name system does not meet the requirements of a persistence required for a URN. This is explained in RFC 3405, but a quick excerpt of the larger text is: For the purposes of URNs, a "namespace" is a collection of uniquely- assigned identifiers. That is, the identifiers are not ever assigned to more than 1 resource, nor are they ever re-assigned to a different resource. Since domain names can change hands (for example, when the organization previously running that domain is purchased), there is no inherent guarantee that username@domainname.example is permanent. regards, Ted Hardie > > > ________________________________ > From: Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us> > To: Gonzalo Salgueiro <gsalguei@cisco.com> > Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>; "apps-discuss@ietf.org Discuss" > <apps-discuss@ietf.org> > Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 4:29 PM > Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question > > I would very much prefer that we do NOT create a new WG but rather proceed > with acct: as part of WebFinger. > > WebFinger is designed to work with any URI -- but it needs acct: since what > acct: does is not currently done by any other URI scheme. > > bob wyman > > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Gonzalo Salgueiro <gsalguei@cisco.com> > wrote: > > > On May 22, 2012, at 3:23 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: > >>>> I would prefer a separate working group, >>> >>> Spinning up a working group is a lot of work (writing the charter, >>> probably organizing a BoF session at a future IETF meeting, finding >>> chairs, etc.). Are you volunteering to help with that? :) >> >> My sense is that given the discussion so far, we can do this without a >> BoF. And I'm starting to be more and more convinced that we need to >> take this out of AppsAWG and give it its own working group (though I'm >> not certain of that yet, and I haven't talked with Pete about it). >> >> That still means we need a draft charter, probably at least a couple >> of weeks for discussion and bashing of it, then at least three or four >> weeks for the IESG to process it. Let's say 6 to 8 weeks, if it goes >> efficiently and smoothly. Add time for glitches if they happen. >> >> If the document can be done in less than, say, 12 to 15 weeks, and if >> can get adequate attention, then we should finish it here. But the >> discussion needs to converge. If it needs more focused attention in >> order to converge, then that's a reason to pull it off into a WG of >> its own. > > After having just completed the long drawn out process of authoring a > controversial charter that was agreeable to all and finally forming a WG, I > would really prefer if we can avoid all that overhead and delay. We all > share the common goal of a robust discovery protocol delivered as > expeditiously as possible. I feel we have come a long way given that both > camps (SWD and WF) have made concessions and came to an agreeable initial > state for a WG draft, along with the maturity of the WF draft and the amount > of review and scrutiny it has received from this group I think this is > possible if we all remain open-minded and willing to work together. As far > as the acct: URI, I get the sense that most folks don't mind the URI scheme > itself. It seems that that the real point of contention is whether it should > be split from the original WF doc or not. > > IMO a strong case can be made for the acct: URI scheme being part of the > core WF spec considering the existence of 6415 and its foundational nature > for the proposed discovery mechanism and how it is entirely URI driven. > Further considering the added work and delay in removing acct: from the > current WF spec and how it is already implemented and in the wild, I'd > prefer not to split them at this point. I'm happy to defer to group > consensus, though. > > Cheers, > > Gonzalo > > >> >> Barry >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 >
- [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Graham Klyne
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Mike Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Barry Leiba
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Gonzalo Salgueiro
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Gonzalo Salgueiro
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Bob Wyman
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Ted Hardie
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Henry S. Thompson
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Bob Wyman
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Melvin Carvalho
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Henry S. Thompson
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Melvin Carvalho
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Michiel de Jong
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Michiel de Jong
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question SM
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Melvin Carvalho
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Mike Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Bob Wyman
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Mike Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Henry S. Thompson
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question SM
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Melvin Carvalho
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Graham Klyne
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Mike Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Mike Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question SM
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question SM
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Melvin Carvalho
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Melvin Carvalho
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Graham Klyne
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Henry S. Thompson
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Henry S. Thompson
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Mike Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Graham Klyne
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Graham Klyne
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Melvin Carvalho
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Graham Klyne
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Mike Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Mike Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Martin Thomson
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Bob Wyman
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Graham Klyne
- Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question Peter Saint-Andre