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

William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com> Mon, 02 July 2012 21:45 UTC

Return-Path: <wmills@yahoo-inc.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 352AD11E80F4 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 14:45:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.547
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.052, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_DEF_WHITELIST=-15]
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 F-P08-O1U8Ge for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 14:45:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm19.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com (nm19.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com [98.139.52.216]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id AECD711E80E1 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 14:45:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [98.139.52.193] by nm19.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 Jul 2012 21:45:52 -0000
Received: from [98.139.52.129] by tm6.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 Jul 2012 21:45:52 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1012.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 Jul 2012 21:45:52 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 251293.97442.bm@omp1012.mail.ac4.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 47679 invoked by uid 60001); 2 Jul 2012 21:45:51 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo-inc.com; s=ginc1024; t=1341265551; bh=yoG97OdxcbBCXd64JAizHtXaMJu2L1EBju58e2gqcUo=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-RocketYMMF:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=boGtX9jgIyL+YLes7tsR3Modqv6ebH3UOpqDfaT3OgFx6MSw31ejEAWpq6H17xv9CGW4YOXQKIMIDyQdx2dCatayvNQc59Ka7VLQJpfGtCSIDgX8+ScF3N/UT1MZXyQA/KiT7qa79c4J1to+JNjTiKvWXYn6coAk/oagvtte14o=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=ginc1024; d=yahoo-inc.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-RocketYMMF:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=HjO2F5k3sO2tQdcA8EbgLJJjwRkwEFVExN6foU8FBsH7yIG+EzClKzsQTdI2bZvN7J+QGwQdZuy5WeXXLJoNBewa4M7omrACmeFElBuzEaTWSuGrnpQg58zqLqfpb3BdIUWlAQAFhIkK8VsDXUoE/3m0VpnxaRB3IqcbcMPSBQE=;
X-YMail-OSG: gN1CapYVM1nU1G_FQqTnSK.vicVjJa5rAaI2.DbNV_VMvjR R309TzlhVNzVTlkosx.Rt4VOEhhB9I1qbQZ2.bJA_txx2CUiYuk0qUHqKI4i TdLApQdX_TYMJyfxC669Zz64_ZtrAEENeaaDCkrcwAid72VZtn7TBNM_JRXz 7y6hdzQGZzKSgIb_BRJEIQeMKpru.YD4qfUf14YMbzdC34e0xiHTzVvkPlYh naMn72PvFgWeipPWYw93LCXyEob73gN0xp0pJ3HJL35z4lgGiGRUBdnlgkiq Ujle0f4_xpdo79BT9ohVYgd0W6ExFwB75p02rp891d4InUtszTMMyhOSwEMI qo9JDKbGI2qCube2b0X4bFt8lhrIPiJjnYgOYuaoLZT8f5V1BAqX3kMUtWHi 16fzicS5UP_9FFVU7AO0ruZcoAZOsG5Qv7ek2FxnjpHRJ_jP_Ici_AkKcPTo ZiFcdyp6_e74r08q2iaqaNPmVOie1uo2SNW3EFA--
Received: from [209.131.62.115] by web31802.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 02 Jul 2012 14:45:50 PDT
X-RocketYMMF: william_john_mills
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.120.356233
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812B6B6@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <CAKaEYhKpeayOw4sN4=NYaoXKJQ2e5P+pP8SqJqnt-=Barb=WqA@mail.gmail.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394366568E4F@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <1340723227.60315.YahooMailNeo@web31801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394366568FF8@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <043201cd54a5$79f2e170$6dd8a450$@packetizer.com> <CAKaEYhL0NS=RZXTdyOMBM_q15P7D1KZ9kgUyMYYB06kA9f0w8Q@mail.gmail.com> <4FEC3B4F.80607@ninebynine.org> <4FEC8BF0.6070605@stpeter.im> <4FEFBF51.5000905@stpeter.im> <1341157111.65669.YahooMailNeo@web31805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4FF0C90D.2060207@stpeter.im> <4FF18C30.2040902@ninebynine.org> <CAMm+LwgVKKHOTMnzLAnxvXFjb=F+e5acdk12fO5Nj-DjUq5uHQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKaEYhJdbYN4O3GbBYw=mxe3GBL8q51w3YnkR2Y4=1Tn0ztCOA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwgazJL2rQjNhnGHgw3kYnR21--RzZ6pWVG5YjVabogRKQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAA1s49W-CpVbWm7zBPq=vWqCu06X33d9hkaDYjL=_9PL93DRvg@mail.gmail.co m>
Message-ID: <1341265550.44719.YahooMailNeo@web31802.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 14:45:50 -0700
From: William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com>
To: Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, "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
Reply-To: William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com>
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: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 21:45:54 -0000

Bob's argument makes sense to me.  I withdraw my own argument for making domain optional.





>________________________________
> From: Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us>
>To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> 
>Cc: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>; "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Murray S. Kucherawy <msk@cloudmark.com> 
>Sent: Monday, July 2, 2012 10:57 AM
>Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question
> 
>
>
>
>
>On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I think Tim regrets having been argued out of a lot of positions
>>relating to naming that he was subsequently proved right on.
>>
>>Naming issues are an area where a lot of people have strong opinions
>>that really turn out to be a matter of taste rather than grounded in
>>semiotics.
>>
>>The whole business of differentiating URLs and URNs as distinct
>>classes was bogus. Once the locator scheme has caching, a URL becomes
>>a name. Once an application provides a default action for a name (e.g.
>>look it up on Amazon) then a name becomes a locator.
>>
>>
>>A URI scheme should simply provide people with a well defined syntax
>>that allows them to express the concepts that applications that need
>>to interoperate need to exchange references to. Trying to decide how
>>people should use the identifiers is counterproductive. Trying to
>>enforce particular approaches is destructive.
>>
>>The vast majority of computer systems that use accounts do not bind
>>them to domain names. So there is a place in the acct: scheme for
>>unbound references.
>It seems to me that an unbound acct: name would be useful only in a "local" case, not generally useful between otherwise inter-working machines. As I understand it, the IETF normally limits its scope to those issues that relate to interworking between systems. Thus, it seems to me that a feature that is purely local and does not, in fact, facilitate inter-working is one that should not appear in an IETF document. This, of course, would not prevent anyone from building a system, or even set of systems, that made private agreements or used private conventions concerning the use of acct: names which were unbound or contained no domain part. But, that is not, I think, a matter which need concern anyone while wearing an IETF standards hat.
>
>
> 
>I expect that practice to go down over time. I
>>expect that deployment of technology that uses acct: will encourage
>>that. But trying to force the issue by excluding unbound accounts is
>>only going to hurt that transition by making acct: a special case of
>>account objects rather than a technology that can ease the transition.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Melvin Carvalho
>><melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2 July 2012 15:31, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Relative URIs have existed from the start. That is one of the reasons
>>>> they had to be renamed 'uniform' rather than universal.
>>>>
>>>> The idea is to have a uniform means of representing a name. If that
>>>> name is ambiguous, then the URI form needs to be able to capture that.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think it helps in the slightest to argue over whether
>>>> /fred.html is a URI or a URI fragment. Tim's original proposal is in
>>>> my view rather better thought out than what others have proposed as
>>>> 'improvements'. A name is merely a label for a concept and every URI
>>>> is a name, some happen to be resolvable via a default protocol, others
>>>> not, thats all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Incompletely specified account names are inevitable. If you want to
>>>> use SAML or the like in a Windows environment then the Windows domain
>>>> is not bound to a unique DNS address and picking a random one is only
>>>> going to confuse matters.
>>>>
>>>> An acct: name that does not have a domain name part is going to have
>>>> to be resolved in the same fashion as relative URIs are - by reference
>>>> to context and local state. I don't see anything wrong in that. In the
>>>> context of accounts, a domain name is not completely unambiguous
>>>> unless you also have time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The real world is a fuzzy place. Trying to cope with the fuzzyness and
>>>> ambiguity by wishing it away only leads to broken specs. Accounts have
>>>> only recently come to be understood to have an intrinsic domain
>>>> component. It is better to accept that fact and to build
>>>> infrastructure that addresses the need than to pretend that the need
>>>> can be magicked away.
>>>>
>>>> People who don't have a domain are going to drop it in any case. We
>>>> saw the same thing happen with the news: and nntp: URL. Tim thought
>>>> that the USENET space was uniform and tried to establish a URL that
>>>> didn't have the domain name. Engineers trying to solve real world
>>>> problems then added it back in because there is more to NNTP than
>>>> USENET.
>>>
>>>
>>> I enjoyed reading this.  Just a remark regarding universal vs uniform.
>>>
>>> FWIW, Tim is on record saying that he regrets not insisting to the IETF,
>>> that the original 'Universal' should be used in URI, instead of changed form
>>> 'Uniform'.  Depending on which circles you're in, I think informally, the
>>> two terms are used pretty interchangeably, these days.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> wrote:
>>>> > On 01/07/2012 23:02, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On 7/1/12 9:38 AM, William Mills wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Section 4.3:  '"@" domainpart' should be optional.  It's reasonable
>>>> >>> to think this might be used with local account identifiers that
>>>> >>> don/t/need have a domain.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Making the domain name of the service provider implicit seems
>>>> >> ill-advised to me. What's the harm of including the domainpart?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > +1
>>>> >
>>>> > (URIs are intended to be a global namespace.)
>>>> >
>>>> > #g
>>>> > --
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > apps-discuss mailing list
>>>> > apps-discuss@ietf.org
>>>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Website: http://hallambaker.com/
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> apps-discuss mailing list
>>>> apps-discuss@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Website: http://hallambaker.com/
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
>
>
>