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

[Melvin Carvalho <[e-mail]>]

On 27 June 2012 23:56, Paul E. Jones <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Mike,****
>
> ** **
>
> I would still like to at least *try* to keep these together.  The “acct”
> URI is a WebFinger URI, so I think it’s best to keep them together.  It
> does not seem that approval of the RFC is contingent on the approval of the
> URI scheme.  It could be registered provisionally at first.  But, I think
> it would be approved given that it is already in use and the fact that
> folks agree to go forward with the document.****
>
> ** **
>
> If folks are absolutely opposed to the URI scheme and wish to hold up
> WebFinger over it, then we could consider splitting it.  I don’t hear that,
> though.  I think folks see the value.  The only concern is whether approval
> of the URI scheme might hold up approval of the RFC.  That does not seem to
> be a problem, but perhaps I’m wrong.****
>
> ** **
>
> In any case, I’d prefer to split it out only if we absolutely had to.
>

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?


> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Paul****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Mike Jones [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 27, 2012 4:44 PM
> *To:* Paul E. Jones; 'John Bradley'; 'Peter Saint-Andre'
>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; 'Murray S. Kucherawy'
> *Subject:* RE: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question****
>
> ** **
>
> If we separate them, the WebFinger draft would continue to have a
> normative dependency on the Acct draft.  But practically then the Acct
> draft could go up for working group last call and then IETF last call
> essentially immediately after the draft is produced and we’d get a clear
> up/down standards decision sooner, rather than later.****
>
> ** **
>
> If you don’t have the time to be editor for that draft, I’m willing to do
> so.  It won’t take more than a few hours to tease apart.****
>
> ** **
>
>                                                                 -- Mike***
> *
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* [e-mail]
> [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Paul E. Jones
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:39 PM
> *To:* 'John Bradley'; 'Peter Saint-Andre'
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; 'Murray S. Kucherawy'
> *Subject:* Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question****
>
> ** **
>
> John,****
>
> ** **
>
> That’s correct, but not a function of the WebFinger draft, but one of RFC
> 6415.  The URI template accepts URIs, not bits and pieces of URIs.****
>
> ** **
>
> We had discussed long ago to use only “[e-mail]”, for
> example, but the group decided to use URIs and “acct” was the preferred URI
> scheme to refer to user accounts.****
>
> ** **
>
> What I’ve been doing was trying to document the agreements various folks
> had reached on WebFinger.  Don’t shoot the messenger.  That said, I don’t
> see a good reason to backtrack at this point.  The “acct” URI scheme is out
> in the wild, its use has a limited scope and specific purpose, etc.****
>
> ** **
>
> If we were to separate them, we would have the question thrust upon us of
> “what URI scheme do I use to refer to paulej’s Twitter account?”  It’s not
> mailto.  It should not be http.  I do agree with the group who reached the
> consensus before that “acct” is a reasonable way forward.  Nobody was in
> love with “acct”, but nothing else worked better.****
>
> ** **
>
> Paul****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* [e-mail]
> [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *John Bradley
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 26, 2012 11:12 AM
> *To:* Peter Saint-Andre
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; Murray S. Kucherawy
> *Subject:* Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question****
>
> ** **
>
> The "resource" parameter is currently a fully qualified URI, and that is
> normalized to acct:****
>
> ** **
>
> The template paramater {uri} also precludes relative URI as near as I can
> tell.****
>
> ** **
>
> Perhaps Paul can correct me,  but I think that the request.****
>
> ** **
>
> GET /.well-known/host-meta.json?resource=[e-mail] HTTP/1.1****
>
> Host: bar.com****
>
> ** **
>
> Is not allowed by the spec, or be interoperable.    The goal of SWD was to
> make the above (slightly different syntax same idea) work.****
>
> ** **
>
> There are a lot of places in the spec where the acct: uri and normalizing
> things to it are baked in.****
>
> ** **
>
> There are likely also issues with host-meta as that is where the template
> is defined.****
>
> ** **
>
> Paul's likely reaction will be that separating them is not trivial, and he
> may be correct in that.****
>
> ** **
>
> On the other hand it is probably the right thing to do, even if it touches
> a bunch of things.****
>
> ** **
>
> John B.****
>
> ** **
>
> On 2012-06-26, at 10:40 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:****
>
> ** **
>
> On 6/26/12 8:37 AM, John Bradley wrote:****
>
> The current spec requires normalization of bare identifiers i.e.
> [e-mail] to acct:[e-mail].****
>
> That would also need to change if we separate the specs.****
>
>
> In what way would it need to change?
>
> Peter
>
> --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>
>