Re: [apps-discuss] The webfinger and the acct: scheme documents

I would appreciate it greatly if someone could suggest a number of useful
use-cases for acct: without WebFinger.

What use is independence if that independence provides no utility?

bob wyman

On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>wrote:

> I would like to add support to submitting your acct: draft as a working
> group document.
>
> While WebFinger will have a normative dependency on it, it's actually
> independent of WebFinger and so can and should be considered separately.
>
>                                 Best wishes,
>                                 -- Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org]
> On Behalf Of Peter Saint-Andre
> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 9:45 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The webfinger and the acct: scheme documents
>
> On 7/2/12 10:29 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
> > The authors of draft-jones-appsawg-webfinger are invited to submit
> > draft-ietf-appsawg-webfinger-00, and we'll approve it.
> >
> > Now, a question: The "acct:" scheme URI work is an offshoot of
> > webfinger.  PSA has recently posted a document that separates that
> > work out.  So what is working group consensus: Should these be
> > processed as two documents in parallel (and should APPSAWG take them
> > on), or should they be processed as a single document?
>
> Clarifying question: since the chairs have invited the authors of the
> WebFinger I-D to submit it as a WG item, I assume that the question "should
> APPSAWG take them on" does not apply to the WebFinger I-D, but only to the
> 'acct' URI I-D.
>
> FWIW, I authored a separate spec for the 'acct' URI scheme because I
> understood from the list discussion that the 'acct' URI *could* be used by
> protocols other than WebFinger. If that is true, then it seems to me
> preferable to work on the WebFinger protocol and the 'acct' URI scheme as
> separate documents. If that is false, then I think they belong in the same
> specification. Personally I'm unclear as to whether the 'acct' URI scheme
> is tightly coupled to WebFinger protocol, so I think we need to figure that
> out first before deciding whether to proceed with two documents or one.
>
> 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
>