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

"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Mon, 02 July 2012 06:28 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 D2F6821F8759 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Jul 2012 23:28:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.537
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.537 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.253, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 dwlZ0nuZWIhd for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Jul 2012 23:28:24 -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 D669F21F86E2 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Jul 2012 23:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id q626SIrt014706 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 15:28:18 +0900
Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 530e_ee08_1cba06d0_c40f_11e1_aa94_001d096c5782; Mon, 02 Jul 2012 15:28:18 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.1]:52453) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <S15DAC16> for <apps-discuss@ietf.org> from <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 15:28:17 +0900
Message-ID: <4FF13F7F.9030806@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 15:28:15 +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
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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>
In-Reply-To: <4FF0C90D.2060207@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
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 06:28:25 -0000

On 2012/07/02 7:02, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 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.

Very much so indeed. While for an URI/IRI scheme with generic syntax 
(e.g. http, ftp), the lack of domain name can be recovered by relative 
resolution, there is no such concept as a relative URI/IRI (except just 
for lacking the scheme name) for scheme with a syntax similar to mailto:.

Regards,    Martin.