IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> Tue, 26 June 2012 14:38 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 EA33121F8540 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:38:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.387
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.387 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.212, 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 eBoo8BoCA4eu for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:38:17 -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 DA13121F8541 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:38:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ghbg16 with SMTP id g16so4276653ghb.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:38:16 -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=uYpQrpXNismjMi34pHNXjxBwwJhullN21i0uGYCTb8E=; b=VjpJdSdsBRgatdi3kP4RFWg3Q5bFT2wYkymv8AQOF2joULXAVbxdGQW3z0cxQ1RIG0 qd5Jf81+uRYcoRJyOQzMihBLxchhJA0/MG0xqpPSGjAK3KMOd1YMs16uQT/dTuJFzgA/ yJP02hb8k6LH5lYwgGTOB3jVfPDI9bFifDrlD+qplU/Z0vDyT5UhJzW47aLvbOzihGNT mG7gtqy5zbaydFUOMUVRWLYBfDDKLMkANaOaneaAqov3/jInnNomtlpnRo586F+VizHH h7qkoN9GmSncl12uvht2Xw/MN1wml8Yuh3nCPi5WZohwWWDFSvTGJih6719CN0xJY8MU 4dzA==
Received: by 10.101.96.15 with SMTP id y15mr5526451anl.32.1340721496437; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:38:16 -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 a34sm140717117yhh.0.2012.06.26.07.38.14 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:38:15 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_02F42B32-4FCC-4F5C-A119-B46E7EBD9E24"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
From: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FE9BFF9.9060403@stpeter.im>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:37:59 -0400
Message-Id: <035988BC-A9BC-4397-8593-D5F84710ECF3@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>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm0qFR33On0IG+Yq0iNHf07EEljV8qY5Y/ogvCXHw7R4890O2Y0wacTO5qlk61Cm+AJNK50
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 14:38:18 -0000

I think it is better to have it in a separate spec.

The current spec requires normalization of bare identifiers i.e. foo@bar.com to acct:foo@bar.com.
That would also need to change if we separate the specs.

John B.
On 2012-06-26, at 9:58 AM, Peter Saint-Andre 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email