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

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Tue, 22 May 2012 18:27 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 E691E21F85E6 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 May 2012 11:27:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.574
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 9+NcN7XkmUhM for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 May 2012 11:27:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57B3821F85E5 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 May 2012 11:27:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [64.101.72.115] (unknown [64.101.72.115]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CC4974005A; Tue, 22 May 2012 12:43:46 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4FBBDA9E.1070707@stpeter.im>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 12:27:42 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812B6B6@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <028401cd3822$cba40520$62ec0f60$@packetizer.com> <4FBBAF4E.7070103@ninebynine.org> <02ea01cd3844$eef7c800$cce75800$@packetizer.com>
In-Reply-To: <02ea01cd3844$eef7c800$cce75800$@packetizer.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 'Graham Klyne' <GK@ninebynine.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 18:27:45 -0000

On 5/22/12 12:01 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote:

> The "acct" URI should exist for the solitary purpose of
> querying information about a user's account via WebFinger.

I'm sure that others have wondered why we don't define a 'webfinger' URI
scheme, then, but 'acct' seems fine to me. Much discussion has occurred
over the years about the matter, RFC 6415 requires a URI, and 'acct' is
suitably neutral. I'm in favor of accepting 'acct' and moving on with
our lives.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/