IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Fri, 29 June 2012 08:44 UTC

Return-Path: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
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 28AB121F8712 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 01:44:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -98.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.191, BAYES_05=-1.11, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292, 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 9iwSLZUEnHJH for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 01:44:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 619C521F8656 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 01:44:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id q5T8hreQ016528 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:43:53 +0900
Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 136e_3724_8e48621a_c1c6_11e1_a9b7_001d096c5782; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:43:52 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.1]:51625) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <S15D96C1> for <apps-discuss@ietf.org> from <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:43:56 +0900
Message-ID: <4FED6AC2.7070104@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:43:46 +0900
From: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: apps-discuss@ietf.org
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> <035988BC-A9BC-4397-8593-D5F84710ECF3@ve7jtb.com> <4FE9C9D4.5060106@stpeter.im> <49510B16-56BF-4445-8865-4FE3CF6ED99C@ve7jtb.com> <042501cd54a4$f0b054b0$d210fe10$@packetizer.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436656BAA3@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <048801cd54af$a7be9ef0$f73bdcd0$@packetizer.com> <CAKaEYhKxo11Ox-f=1ec=pmXoFnpRmHoaGv7qdwM06ek_AQDOVA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKaEYhKxo11Ox-f=1ec=pmXoFnpRmHoaGv7qdwM06ek_AQDOVA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 08:44:04 -0000

On 2012/06/28 8:21, Melvin Carvalho wrote:

> I could be mistaken, but my impression was that more were in favor of the
> acct: URI scheme having it's own document, than not.  Is there a way in
> which consensus can be established, on this issue?

A few days/weeks, the WG chairs have asked us what we'd prefer to do. 
It's now up to the WG chairs to tell us which way they want the thing to 
proceed. Based on the feedback I have seen, it could go either way. I 
think the most important thing now is for the chairs to make a decision, 
so that people can go back to work on the document(s) and can stop 
discussing procedural stuff.

Regards,    Martin.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email