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

Michiel de Jong <> Fri, 25 May 2012 11:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 178A321F85E7 for <>; Fri, 25 May 2012 04:06:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.977
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kQ8s2Cw5hWgQ for <>; Fri, 25 May 2012 04:06:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5639621F85E5 for <>; Fri, 25 May 2012 04:06:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pbcwy7 with SMTP id wy7so1650514pbc.31 for <>; Fri, 25 May 2012 04:06:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=Kq1f/vjE6nt5gutxuo1cmL+aO92g1CC1/gfa9phdG9U=; b=T4twjwRmQG6H0xNw8R1AImtc//rc2E9sa30iL9M+BUGiRsrcq6ZbAWu8QAxbZi5Kjm yvxt1fwmGrTw2kvZ/TFacR+REYjoI7loKSCKEpdKB2HhDYaS1KHA1om697qfumFUdPKc z30vFqXxfkZhgpTSV3Auy0SEFLsdfMMZgqLO6eeB7tam+vOpKcbYthfAdr5F+mCD9Od3 1tw0QDj/KdTWpLYMUySjQ2i89nQ2LfMCqkq+smRGgTtCogGZ2HiAnYy8tXR+6omjK37p 3OxZ12H3XCG17H3hgiOntSFIymo7DYfY15D6gQNKOoOddtfD67vH31PYXr/d9YxL3GDL ZOpA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id kn8mr31167182pbc.162.1337944003414; Fri, 25 May 2012 04:06:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 25 May 2012 04:06:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: []
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <04f601cd3957$14ea4d90$3ebee8b0$> <> <058101cd39b6$02a28990$07e79cb0$> <>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 11:06:43 +0000
Message-ID: <>
From: Michiel de Jong <>
To: John Bradley <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnKZRbEB8T2UcrIEKyqo1NWHL1TWW/i59e8V3nn/HvjNpbLCjvtt4nDFtEHkf0nOrkvNHdE
Cc: " Discuss" <>
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: Fri, 25 May 2012 11:06:45 -0000

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 2:27 PM, John Bradley <> wrote:
> Until acct: is an approved URI I am not keen to have openID Connect take a normative reference to it.

Indeed I think we can conclude:
- an acct: scheme would be helpful
- it does not currently exist
- we have to think about what to do until it exists

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Blaine Cook <> wrote:
> I'm completely and totally opposed to webfinger not accepting
> scheme-less addresses.
> Please start from the user experience – no-one in the history of the
> internet has typed "http://" into a browser window address bar (I may
> be overstating that, but statistically speaking it's true).
> Likewise, no-one will ever type "acct" or "mailto" or "xmpp" or
> anything else into a form field.
> To require clients to convert "" into
> "" is just pedantry of the worst sort. If I had it
> my way, webfinger (not host-meta) wouldn't even resolve URIs; it would
> only resolve scheme-less email identifiers, because that's what we're
> doing.
> I *understand* that there *should* be an URI for these things;
> however, there is prior art for not having an URI – DNS is a core
> piece of internet infrastructure that uses "bare" identifiers all the
> time precisely to find *resolvable* resources that *do* use URIs.
> I'm not going to stand in the way of consensus, but if the IETF
> specification ends up stating that bare identifiers are not supported,
> then I will personally consider this work a failure as I believe
> strongly enough that URIs are not necessarily appropriate here. :-/
> b.

And this was +1'ed by Mike Jones. So I pointed out that:

Once acct: is a URI scheme, you'll be able to say the parameter takes
"any URI". Until then, you'll have two options:

1) say the parameter takes "any URI or user@host"
2) say the parameter takes "any existing URI scheme or acct:user@host"

I think we agree that as Blaine said, there *should* be an URI, but I
think we also can agree that the limbo period would be too long to say
"let's first wait to see if acct: gets accepted, and then decide what
we do". So we have to make a choice about the period between now and
the 'verdict'. For that period, I would vote for option 1. I think
it's clear that option 1 has a down-side:
- it deviates from host-meta as such

but option 2 has three downsides:
- in relying on a scheme that does not *yet* exist, it also deviates
from host-meta, so that doesn't change
- it could lead to rejection-domino, should acct: get rejected
- it involves dropping bare user addresses, and Blaine already said
he's "completely and utterly" opposed to that.

I'm in favour of option 1, and from what i read, some more people are.
Some other people have stated they are simply not interested in making
the scheme-less case work, which is fair enough. I don't think anybody
is in favour of suspending production use until we get an answer about
the proposed URI scheme, although I might be wrong. There are probably
some other positions which i'm underrepresenting here, sorry if that's
the case.

But when phrased this way, is anybody in favour of option 2?