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

John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> Tue, 22 May 2012 19:08 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 6CBDF21F86B8 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 May 2012 12:08:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 hPzT6Z7CHGq8 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 May 2012 12:08:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-f172.google.com (mail-qc0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5C2E21F8647 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 May 2012 12:08:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qcsq13 with SMTP id q13so5170432qcs.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 May 2012 12:08:15 -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 :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer :x-gm-message-state; bh=orkrTkai+3n5PTlLI+aTID2Br/WPh/NosQFJZC0J48U=; b=ox/kwEdPK2PMz7WcbnGgHJB6nxEe1TazuiZbTlzfo6asSSdDnYGksxLPRAX6WF54Yc +ZXQJT96g3+8viCDANlgaqhP+6lOHpUPx5b8bBuQ03AAtVWFwl6DaHeKvuphrbChyzR+ MCP0AxbdUrFVqhXXKHAc0L87C+M2128f7ti8jKo7G9qTYCcaYdtMTQROOG7v3kkmCQF4 jkTI5r5kuC9vE5m1Xiti0XbHKibHxI0zYd0vPWYCo4DqOeNQckQzmFWYNOij+4axdQFI n1VBTEL4rJzmbmtdsVh1Ad4ZlQS6P5UuRHVldl3NjhQ3bT8hhRX8fV4HLcmegpooN4Rw zz9g==
Received: by 10.229.178.214 with SMTP id bn22mr12852727qcb.101.1337713695364; Tue, 22 May 2012 12:08:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.6.10] (ip-64-134-70-50.public.wayport.net. [64.134.70.50]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id gy5sm26799255qab.3.2012.05.22.12.08.12 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 22 May 2012 12:08:14 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FBBE0A6.5040906@stpeter.im>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 15:08:05 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B3B7CC14-B6E2-40FC-BA84-427CEE96A8E5@ve7jtb.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>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm3RA88qJFT73m73pZ5FJlSSCQY8EUqzJK5hl0mJvqGddQexbM/xdSiNIzjIVJI5Vtf6OKJ
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <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 19:08:16 -0000

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