Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-acct-uri-05.txt

[DataPacRat <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 7/1/13 12:13 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>> On Monday, July 01, 2013 8:02 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

>>> However, a date could be included in an API or protocol that enables
>>> applications to use 'acct' URIs. Is there a reason why this would need
>>> to be included in the URI itself?
>>
>> Sure.. but I think the date should actually be a (perhaps optional) part of
>> the identifier, i.e., the acct URI. That would also make it easier to
>> exchange it between various applications and protocols.
>
> Are you arguing that it would be easier or *safer*?
>
> Also, it seems that your argument would apply to URIs in general (e.g.,
> HTTP URIs for web pages) and not just 'acct' URIs. However, we seem to
> have ways to deal with stale/old HTTP URIs and the like. Thus I wonder
> what in your mind is special about 'acct' URIs in this respect.

As I'm discovering in a discussion over at vcarddav, particular
accounts seem to have a much higher turnover rate than references to
those accounts. As part of a "signed vCard" proposal I'm making, an
extension to the format will allow date parameters to be added to any
field containing personal information, to cover just such an occasion.
(They can be applied to other fields, too, such as gender, should they
change over time.)

Coming in so late myself, I'm not sure whether this method should be
applied to the acct: URI; but since I'm using similar reasoning in my
own project, it seemed worth mentioning.


Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
"Then again, I could be wrong."