IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Gonzalo Salgueiro <gsalguei@cisco.com> Tue, 22 May 2012 20:20 UTC

Return-Path: <gsalguei@cisco.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 5347721F8587 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 May 2012 13:20:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 UJb7ZLbUZ4RL for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 May 2012 13:20:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (av-tac-rtp.cisco.com [64.102.19.209]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5032F21F852C for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 May 2012 13:20:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from chook.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4MKKJcO004347 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 May 2012 16:20:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rtp-gsalguei-8716.cisco.com (rtp-gsalguei-8716.cisco.com [10.116.61.55]) by chook.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4MKKI3q024421; Tue, 22 May 2012 16:20:19 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Gonzalo Salgueiro <gsalguei@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <1337714535.85430.YahooMailNeo@web31806.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 16:20:18 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <72825F5E-B521-423C-87DE-817484A34D95@cisco.com>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812B6B6@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B1680429673943665131A7@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <7BCF42BF-127F-478B-A922-1E84D087A0F3@ve7jtb.com> <4FBBE0A6.5040906@stpeter.im> <B3B7CC14-B6E2-40FC-BA84-427CEE96A8E5@ve7jtb.com> <1337714535.85430.YahooMailNeo@web31806.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
To: William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org Discuss" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
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, 22 May 2012 20:20:21 -0000

++

My sentiments exactly.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

On May 22, 2012, at 3:22 PM, William Mills wrote:

> I say leave acct: in the current spec.  While I don't think it's strictly necessary for the purposes of WF I don't think it's a significant flaw either.  I also think breaking it out into a separate spec at this point is just extra work.
> 
> John, will WF in it's current form do the job for you?
> 
> -bill
> 
> From: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
> To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> 
> Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org> 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 12:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question
> 
> Yes.
> 
> I would have preferred to have this in OAuth as we proposed in Paris.
> 
> I don't have the feeling that this is making much real progress in the general apps area.
> 
> OpenID Connect is nearing completion,  Unless some real progress happens it will likely continue to  be based on SWD.
> 
> So the question is how best to make progress so there can be a reference-able  spec.
> 
> John B.
> 
> On 2012-05-22, at 2:53 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 
> > On 5/22/12 12:42 PM, John Bradley wrote:
> >> I would prefer a separate working group, 
> > 
> > Spinning up a working group is a lot of work (writing the charter,
> > probably organizing a BoF session at a future IETF meeting, finding
> > chairs, etc.). Are you volunteering to help with that? :)
> > 
> >> with two specs one for
> >> discovery and one for the URI scheme.
> > 
> > Having separate specs seems reasonable.
> > 
> > /psa
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email