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

John Bradley <> Wed, 27 June 2012 22:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 258E121F8593 for <>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:13:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.755
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.755 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.553, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zo5BnBtXEMnr for <>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:13:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5037D21F858A for <>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:13:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yenq13 with SMTP id q13so1506893yen.31 for <>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:13:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:message-id:cc:x-mailer:from:subject:date:to :x-gm-message-state; bh=hV5rM6unre5p2QgN0aPO2zrNtKkR2mua/dP+aWOmPyM=; b=ayHZpwy2RJ2MFO4R40cPNlEt0jwSEwqzHyUcoEidUFwW53tr/3JP18wVTK7QXMjLoN aXWICH984Oa5P5gvuziV+z6ESNFXOtwCf5lNXirDami+FVnoG123OAjDC4EFqtrOp+gB tRS4J+/M7dOG/h1rjv03nNbfqD+cfcM14UoQaS0FjurDx7NcsfMS7CHLtsyxEk5w0P2W WpZkup5EXnzMXT74br3PFFZAIMpVwvQlyP55pShLm4Q7uRimHBuY15lR1eYPdrKud1pP Fr8yN54dJfD+kEQrlYfDXRt8snnMcdZpWgbfTAcZkwaEEIKJo98Z/+oaSOdoNrGhQhmn S+4w==
Received: by with SMTP id d2mr7766891ang.74.1340835215639; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:13:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPS id z19sm65051664anh.22.2012. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:13:34 -0700 (PDT)
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <047501cd54ae$c6848a30$538d9e90$> <> <049e01cd54b0$89925ba0$9cb712e0$>
In-Reply-To: <049e01cd54b0$89925ba0$9cb712e0$>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="sha1"; boundary="Apple-Mail-A76167CF-E5FD-4FA8-A992-ECD7D77717C4"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (9B206)
From: John Bradley <>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:13:27 -0400
To: "Paul E. Jones" <>
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk5RMqsJt/RggEmnBN731uzN8yY9EcN0bnJu+M+de4qqfI9qlGTqhrnmlQxgR3GD9kRKEq7
Cc: Graham Klyne <>, "" <>
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 22:13:40 -0000

It is the W3C TAG that is the most likely to raise a blocking objection.   

John B. 

Sent from my iPhone

On 2012-06-27, at 6:02 PM, "Paul E. Jones" <> wrote:

> Who in the IESG might raise a concern?  We should talk.
> So far, it seems like folks are happy in broad terms, but only concerned about the unknown.  Worrying does not help us.  Let’s get whomever we need involved right now.
> Paul
> From: Mike Jones [] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 5:54 PM
> To: Paul E. Jones; 'William Mills'; 'Graham Klyne'; 'SM'
> Cc:
> Subject: RE: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question
> At least based upon my experience with the OAuth Core and OAuth Bearer specs, until IESG/IETF last call, a lot of the IESG members don’t raise issues, and then they’re often raised as DISCUSS issues, which block publication until resolved.  Sometimes these DISCUSS issues also call for cross-organizational review with the W3C.
> Until the acct: URI is actually in a spec in IESG/IETF last call, my experience says that we really won’t know where we stand.  Hence me wanting to get us there as soon after Vancouver as possible.
>                                                                 -- Mike
> From: [] On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 2:50 PM
> To: 'William Mills'; 'Graham Klyne'; 'SM'
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question
> Bill,
> 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.
> Paul
> From: [] On Behalf Of William Mills
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:27 PM
> To: Graham Klyne; SM
> Cc:
> 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 draft?
> Thanks,
> -bill
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list