IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> Wed, 27 June 2012 21:54 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Jones@microsoft.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 4670811E8095 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:54:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.782
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.782 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.184, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 or4u-w6wjUQM for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from va3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (va3ehsobe003.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.180.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4574521F8557 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail18-va3-R.bigfish.com (10.7.14.243) by VA3EHSOBE008.bigfish.com (10.7.40.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 21:52:26 +0000
Received: from mail18-va3 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail18-va3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4ED3A00E2; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 21:52:26 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.8; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:TK5EX14HUBC106.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -22
X-BigFish: VS-22(zz9371Ic85fh4015Izz1202hzz1033IL8275bh8275dhz2fh2a8h668h839hd25hf0ah)
Received-SPF: pass (mail18-va3: domain of microsoft.com designates 131.107.125.8 as permitted sender) client-ip=131.107.125.8; envelope-from=Michael.Jones@microsoft.com; helo=TK5EX14HUBC106.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ; icrosoft.com ;
Received: from mail18-va3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail18-va3 (MessageSwitch) id 1340833944850478_2003; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 21:52:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from VA3EHSMHS045.bigfish.com (unknown [10.7.14.249]) by mail18-va3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1D1C260048; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 21:52:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC106.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.8) by VA3EHSMHS045.bigfish.com (10.7.99.55) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 21:52:24 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.2.53]) by TK5EX14HUBC106.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.80.61]) with mapi id 14.02.0309.003; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 21:53:59 +0000
From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>, 'William Mills' <wmills@yahoo-inc.com>, 'Graham Klyne' <GK@ninebynine.org>, 'SM' <sm@resistor.net>
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question
Thread-Index: Ac0367W7uVNJxgK+Tf6qpowkmE64wgbqGMQAABy4FoAACQTvAAAVEVMAAAKwvAAACSwgAAAAC1Wg
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 21:53:58 +0000
Message-ID: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436656BCF0@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812B6B6@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <CAKaEYhKpeayOw4sN4=NYaoXKJQ2e5P+pP8SqJqnt-=Barb=WqA@mail.gmail.com> <4FEA6677.3020705@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <6.2.5.6.2.20120626224534.0a8b4298@resistor.net> <4FEB3060.1040805@ninebynine.org> <1340818030.8183.YahooMailNeo@web31806.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <047501cd54ae$c6848a30$538d9e90$@packetizer.com>
In-Reply-To: <047501cd54ae$c6848a30$538d9e90$@packetizer.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.76]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436656BCF0TK5EX14MBXC283r_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.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: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 21:54:14 -0000

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: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 2:50 PM
To: 'William Mills'; 'Graham Klyne'; 'SM'
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
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: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org> [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org]<mailto:[mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org]> On Behalf Of William Mills
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:27 PM
To: Graham Klyne; SM
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org<mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email