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

"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Wed, 27 June 2012 07:43 UTC

Return-Path: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
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 D269A21F85EA for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:43:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.626
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.626 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.164, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 38B1unaeMNAO for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:43:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E258021F857D for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:43:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id q5R7hCmv019857 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:43:12 +0900
Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 1930_c799_bf9036e6_c02b_11e1_a0ca_001d096c5782; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:43:12 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.1]:45268) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <S15D837D> for <apps-discuss@ietf.org> from <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:43:17 +0900
Message-ID: <4FEAB98E.307@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:43:10 +0900
From: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: SM <sm@resistor.net>
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>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120626224534.0a8b4298@resistor.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: 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 07:43:20 -0000

Hello SM,

On 2012/06/27 15:06, SM wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> At 18:48 26-06-2012, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>> Warning: procedural nitpicking ahead!
>>
>> I think we should be careful about this. uri-review@ietf.org is for
>> review of URI/IRI schemes in general. This has a rather low barrier.
>> The fact that it gets approved there doesn't mean that it will pass
>> through the IETF standardization process. On the other hand, if the
>> IETF standardizes it, it has the possibility of overriding the
>> decision on uri-review@ietf.org if that should be necessary.
>> I'm just mentioning this here because we have been through this for
>> another URI scheme.
>
> I don't like the idea of mixing registration criteria and the
> standardization process. The authors of the other URI scheme were nice
> not to turn such a matter into an issue. This is the sort of issue which
> generate controversies. It will be detrimental to the IETF as people
> will walk away.

I can't disagree with what you say, but I'm not sure whether you agree 
or disagree with what I said. Can you clarify?

Regards,    Martin.