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

[John Bradley <[e-mail]>]

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" <[e-mail]> 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 [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 5:54 PM
> To: Paul E. Jones; 'William Mills'; 'Graham Klyne'; 'SM'
> Cc: [e-mail]
> 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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 2:50 PM
> To: 'William Mills'; 'Graham Klyne'; 'SM'
> Cc: [e-mail]
> 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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of William Mills
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:27 PM
> To: Graham Klyne; SM
> Cc: [e-mail]
> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss