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

Mike Jones <> Tue, 26 June 2012 15:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4017821F85DF for <>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 08:18:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.827
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.827 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.229, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ve3o7Tu2Xn7T for <>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 08:18:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A39B921F85AF for <>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 08:18:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:16:19 +0000
Received: from mail112-db3 (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80F73C03DB; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:16:19 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI;; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -22
X-BigFish: VS-22(zz98dI9371Ic89bhc857hzz1202hzz1033IL8275bh8275dhz2fh2a8h668h839hd25hf0ah)
Received-SPF: pass (mail112-db3: domain of designates as permitted sender) client-ip=;; ; ;
Received: from mail112-db3 (localhost.localdomain []) by mail112-db3 (MessageSwitch) id 1340723776853679_6057; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:16:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDAF71A0048; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:16:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:16:15 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.005; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:17:35 +0000
From: Mike Jones <>
To: William Mills <>, Melvin Carvalho <>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question
Thread-Index: Ac0367W7uVNJxgK+Tf6qpowkmE64wgbqGMQAAAKM2jAAA8N6gAAAR9EQ
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:17:34 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394366568FF8TK5EX14MBXC283r_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
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: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:18:03 -0000

Yes, there’s a significant advantage.  It allows the acct: scheme to be approved (or rejected) quickly so that we will know whether it is safe for WebFinger and other specifications to use it.  That approval/rejection can then happen in parallel with refining the discovery specification.

Otherwise, we could be in a position where we think we have a final discovery specification, only to learn that it can’t go forward because of objections to the acct: scheme from the W3C and possibly others.  It would be much better for us to know whether that is the case up front.

                                                            -- Mike

From: William Mills []
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 8:07 AM
To: Mike Jones; Melvin Carvalho; Murray S. Kucherawy
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question

Is there any advantage to breaking it out?  The WF draft depends on it and so can't finalize until acct: does, right?

Will one get done more quickly than the other?

From: Mike Jones <<>>
To: Melvin Carvalho <<>>; Murray S. Kucherawy <<>>
Cc: "<>" <<>>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 6:20 AM
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question

Yes, I believe that the acct: scheme should be considered separately from discovery, in its own document.

                                                            -- Mike

From:<> []<mailto:[]> On Behalf Of Melvin Carvalho
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 5:06 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question

On 22 May 2012 09:22, Murray S. Kucherawy <<>> wrote:
As we prepare to bring webfinger into appsawg, it looks a lot like there’s substantial discussion just on the point of the proposed “acct:” scheme.

So, a question for those tracking the discussion:  Is this a big enough topic that it should be split into its own document?  This would be a useful thing to decide as we figure out how to handle the work once it enters working group mode.

(This by itself has me wondering if we should revisit the conversation about whether webfinger needs its own working group, but I’ll leave it to Barry and Pete to make that call.)

There has been some discussion of this here and on other lists, and the consensus I think is for people to follow the process at :


I think the current state of play is that webfinger can be used with any URI type e.g. mailto: http: acct: etc. acct: is recommended in the RFC.


apps-discuss mailing list<>

apps-discuss mailing list<>