IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Mon, 02 July 2012 03:31 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 BC18911E8156 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Jul 2012 20:31:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.191
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.191 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.192, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_64=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 c9AKrrXI2i9Y for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Jul 2012 20:31:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41A4411E8140 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Jul 2012 20:31:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.9] (unknown [216.17.179.227]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D00604005A; Sun, 1 Jul 2012 21:49:53 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4FF11620.8040901@stpeter.im>
Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2012 21:31:44 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com>
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> <1341189869.28404.YahooMailNeo@web31802.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <1341189869.28404.YahooMailNeo@web31802.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
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 03:31:39 -0000

On 7/1/12 6:44 PM, William Mills wrote:
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
>> To: William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com>
>> Cc: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>; "apps-discuss@ietf.org"
> <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Murray S. Kucherawy <msk@cloudmark.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, July 1, 2012 3:02 PM
>> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question
>>
>> On 7/1/12 9:38 AM, William Mills wrote:
>>> As susquepedalian as I frequently am, I would change 'discussants'
>> in
>>> section 2 to "working group".
>>
>> Those discussions far predated any consideration at the IETF.
>>
>>> section 3 para 3 "It is not assumed that an entity will necessarily
>>> be able to interact with a user's account using any particular
>>> application protocol, such as email...", I understand this but email
>>> isn't a protocol, SMTP is for example.  Maybe change "email"
>> to SMTP
>>> there?
>>
>> Sure.
>>
>>> 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?
> 
> I just think it's something that won't be needed in some cases.

With all due respect, I think your suggestion is nonsensical. If I work
at example.com and I want to send an email message to my co-worker Bill,
is the URI for me mailto:bill instead of mailto:bill@example.com (as it
would be for someone working at example.net)?

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email