IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Mon, 02 July 2012 17:43 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.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 D6E6B21F8768 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 10:43:37 -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=-0.000, 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 umx14Zhw90Az for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 10:43:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A7B121F8767 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 10:43:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bkty8 with SMTP id y8so5196535bkt.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:43:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=4/mOH33PAouKv/NqFXVBjq2S7bFK+Ys0mAZBmhG6Oho=; b=FgRFdpmM+wuhSruSI7m6WTd8P0OzHmbfT+EYYNLzVQ70NEXrUm3PYW83pHJZ14iKPS FVKf7/ry+q6XKsNX7yG8joRZOccwuk8ltxmTZ0M4micYDGX6ZXGZhgbmIoE7RXTZdXUD Y7+1//2IgRSCMwbZCX48MI2DL8feWPMEtACfaLqb8XNgucILcYaH3dN6f+CPaYd/Jx8V hmPrBggzapCg6GenXHYPMVqxtHz7a6PF6lIio9gJ2DQu+jnLo8QROmAHG5rK/eTc0ZW3 IRxJTAm+y3o+pJxVh+JoPLYOBCVUTS7NCzgVquenrIgU2/TLMkaVjc3YXpXx5/GvtN+g 2S+A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.205.132.6 with SMTP id hs6mr7835100bkc.26.1341251021855; Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:43:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.66.4 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 10:43:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4FF1CA48.7090609@stpeter.im>
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@stpeter.im>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:43:41 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWPThH9at9m4UsKi_uqXTZZ-cdkmbU4Lw9X2A88S1isgw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
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 17:43:38 -0000

On 2 July 2012 09:20, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:
> I really don't see a good reason to make the hostname optional -- it
> just introduces unnecessary complexity.

+1

There is always a domain.  Relying on implicit contexts just makes the
scheme more fragile.

If you really don't know the domain, but expect clients to have this
information, how about:
acct:user@you.know.what.i.mean.but.its.not.my.domain.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email