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

"Paul E. Jones" <> Wed, 27 June 2012 21:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F1CB21F860B for <>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dG9x94Y90F6E for <>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:50:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 701E321F8613 for <>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:49:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sydney ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5RLneUA018140 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:49:41 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=dublin; t=1340833781; bh=PDNgCpiHdotYzFClj+VwsvtSYTwVutGBaiMrA4hrjEw=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=I1fhqdQt9ObZi1DMT/7qna1DD7oq2T3UjfVyQLuwobyCJ9v5+8PAbaOzdCG3K9jdn nlj1K8gLQak5Wm0q62a9I9sKLmqC9mQKhnFJ7afDKkW3Xvde1fiT5W5FCi6sCeqZ4D zlGIFSsfczhMdzSGDMCdl0EpuLwoiqMFlpcf4zaM=
From: "Paul E. Jones" <>
To: 'William Mills' <>, 'Graham Klyne' <>, 'SM' <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:49:48 -0400
Message-ID: <047501cd54ae$c6848a30$538d9e90$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0476_01CD548D.3F738670"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQHACExhZgXedi2je/bJAOmWfz8jRwJIaUzKAmC+4owBc2Np4gGLJqkJAYQI6cyW3+3rcA==
Content-Language: en-us
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: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 21:50:14 -0000



I'd say there is a division right down the middle.  It's not clear if there
are more in favor of keeping it there or moving it to a separate document.
However, there is not an overwhelming number on one side.


Moving it to a separate document should not be necessary.  We can publish
the WF RFC with the "acct" URI scheme and work to get URI reviewer approval
in parallel.  Is URI reviewer approval required first?  I don't think so.
Graham suggested that having it agreed in a standards-track RFC carries a
lot of weight.


It seems that those who want to separate it are mostly concerned that it
will delay the RFC publication.  That does not appear to be an issue at all.




From: []
On Behalf Of William Mills
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:27 PM
To: Graham Klyne; SM
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question


Based on the comments to date is there consensus for a path forward?  Will
we leave acct: in the WF draft or split it out?  

If we're splitting it do we have someone stepping up to author the new