IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> Mon, 02 July 2012 16:44 UTC

Return-Path: <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.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 2B1E821F870F for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 09:44:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.777
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.777 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.521, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742]
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 UfgG9sfDxRPz for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 09:44:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gh0-f172.google.com (mail-gh0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CD7621F86D7 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 09:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ghbg16 with SMTP id g16so4803069ghb.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Jul 2012 09:44:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to:x-mailer:x-gm-message-state; bh=n8+TceIBwI7gWtlfKEoQOQBzVeHY8nXcq2D67tpWH1A=; b=DHlaMTEx4EkCuLzyh8g+I0k5aWfUPK/DCq+8xykqR/G3g9+zOMNc1BWVj9251BB72i sqyTBvu1jFz3hSs0wIeko/e9FO7okrZ2FjX6A7+8LuyvUkvmj/wWxtXrOOt2wOP6uJ9y zDXU1ueba3yer2Y92B+rbTKsT2kIyq3uhqj8eRzxoiCSK9ay+POUQkSJUS2SKvRyRBDC FjcMHycTV+elGRYqprzsQNwiNbY7/x9qnyLepT4YlYQl14VPB/Bjcwth5eIimOh/muHz /20jfvupv9m4rXESnnx4tVEHD1PFFUMUFD23Kkhk19IvXjBvaDwD9S7InAKAL6J7s0uw 4mig==
Received: by 10.236.192.162 with SMTP id i22mr16182377yhn.83.1341247482200; Mon, 02 Jul 2012 09:44:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.211] (190-20-50-6.baf.movistar.cl. [190.20.50.6]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e19sm11936221ann.10.2012.07.02.09.44.38 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 02 Jul 2012 09:44:40 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_91F18569-0A34-444F-AB24-4933A69815AC"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
From: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FF1CA48.7090609@stpeter.im>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 12:44:32 -0400
Message-Id: <5EBEB0AD-B7B9-4EF4-B7C2-055679B36705@ve7jtb.com>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812B6B6@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.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> <4FF18C30.2040902@ninebynine.org> <CAMm+LwgVKKHOTMnzLAnxvXFjb=F+e5acdk12fO5Nj-DjUq5uHQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKaEYhJdbYN4O3GbBYw=mxe3GBL8q51w3YnkR2Y4=1Tn0ztCOA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwgazJL2rQjNhnGHgw3kYnR21--RzZ6pWVG5YjVabogRKQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394366572961@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <4FF1C3B5.4090902@stpeter.im> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B1680429673943665729B6@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <4FF1CA48.7090609@st peter.im>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnlf51QWWxxhM0QurYIvVJO1u1k3RfQuY0F+4Skpt+6cUN56rmS0YWptsRjL5dhRMLKITfC
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 16:44:38 -0000

Relative URI need to be relative to a base context.

They don't contain scheme or host information.

I could see having a relative acct: URI of:

<HEAD>
   <BASE href="acct://example.com">
 </HEAD>
<BODY>
<A href="bob">bob's account</A>
</BODY>
That would be assembled by some user agent to "acct:bob@example.com" as a URI for dereferencing.

That is different from throwing around "acct:bob"  which is like saying "http:///bob.html" and not a valid URI as I understand it.

This is the good thing about trying to document acct: separately,  it brings out issues that WF might not address.

John B.

On 2012-07-02, at 12:20 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> On 7/2/12 9:54 AM, Mike Jones wrote:
>> It's done a lot - it's one of the primary applications of the
>> "localhost" name.  I suppose we could define acct:user@localhost, but
>> that seems like more of a hack than just allowing acct:user.
> 
> So if you want to access one of these non-Internet-connected hosts using
> HTTP, you would specify a URI of "http:///"? That's crazy talk. :)
> 
> I really don't see a good reason to make the hostname optional -- it
> just introduces unnecessary complexity.
> 
> Peter
> 
> -- 
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email