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

Bjoern Hoehrmann <> Thu, 28 June 2012 00:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80D0D21F85FD for <>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:37:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.528
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.528 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.929, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3L4Ueytc7KPY for <>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:37:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id 2784B21F85F6 for <>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:37:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 28 Jun 2012 00:37:46 -0000
Received: from (EHLO HIVE) [] by (mp002) with SMTP; 28 Jun 2012 02:37:46 +0200
X-Authenticated: #723575
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX195jvRegZJ57omJ61GRUb3bM35J9q33KP3AYg3ZkW bqVNL8xaddlrMl
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <>
To: SM <>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 02:37:45 +0200
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <047501cd54ae$c6848a30$538d9e90$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 00:37:52 -0000

* SM wrote:
>At 14:49 27-06-2012, Paul E. Jones wrote:
>>Moving it to a separate document should not be necessary.  We can 
>>publish the WF RFC with the "acct" URI scheme and work to get URI 
>>reviewer approval in parallel.  Is URI reviewer approval required 
>>first?  I don't think so.  Graham suggested that having it agreed in 
>>a standards-track RFC carries a lot of weight.
>If the draft is on-track as an IETF RFC, the URI review should not be 
>a problem.  Graham already suggested the easy path.  If you completed 
>the steps to request a URI review, it's not worth worrying about that 
>if the draft is making progress.

I believe for proposals in Standards Track documents, as is the case
here, the process consists of asking for review on the uri-review list
and addressing any feedback there. Anything else, like asking the ex-
pert reviewer whether they approve or coordinating IANA registration,
would be done by the IESG or otherwise happen automatically after the
IESG is asked to consider the document for publication. A request for
review has been posted to the uri-review list, so if there is anything
else Paul has to initiate, could you spell that out?
Björn Höhrmann · ·
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 ·
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 ·