[VCARDDAV] draft-ietf-vcarddav-social-networks status

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Fri, 02 March 2012 14:57 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: vcarddav@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vcarddav@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AC6A21F85D0 for <vcarddav@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 06:57:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.986
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.986 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.009, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 NTK+55Mp7ThM for <vcarddav@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 06:57:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BE6721F85B9 for <vcarddav@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 06:57:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ggmi1 with SMTP id i1so898620ggm.31 for <vcarddav@ietf.org>; Fri, 02 Mar 2012 06:57:34 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com designates 10.236.145.230 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.236.145.230;
Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com designates 10.236.145.230 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: from mr.google.com ([10.236.145.230]) by 10.236.145.230 with SMTP id p66mr13956908yhj.27.1330700254270 (num_hops = 1); Fri, 02 Mar 2012 06:57:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=MZiEyKKKZqS2vGWZasw3IzP+ad15LjxSfmMpm/QXaC4=; b=fV9YKXW0U8UOh9y2TW4dvS/VG8Alt6wmLBmpyM03QsZjPFyvSHSheM3hdTgO3ICs7i neiTpY26ZqpgH6oA9XWqaaQPtjSt4LbF+hfJVMgJ+x5AFhcAx0vD4O/M7x2M+TW/R42x mkw06+k2PeRlALYgVXJUfnsfvTic04CfCubm9qHwCLtVotGM+Ojl8Oa7Hcka6xMMpwOM PimGrrNi5TuzEfA7vOIW8KEqCq32Z9+Kj3SM+UjbR6WsS5duHJmaVSMSR/JJJNKvEbYv zA6wP7qRCAI5g9a2K5dngtLGgpKIU1JMApQvtw45ET7LfL5d+fvZ+S6B/4qWZuIPUZ+H 7NcA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.145.230 with SMTP id p66mr11056423yhj.27.1330700254158; Fri, 02 Mar 2012 06:57:34 -0800 (PST)
Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: by 10.147.106.16 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 06:57:34 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 09:57:34 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 7rjjfvIqBynV3LX2bNZHdA8dIxU
Message-ID: <CAC4RtVCmxPbWRWZqXfEg4wS3jrYKJDQNj+2DvvDXARN+GjbcEw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: vcarddav@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: draft-ietf-vcarddav-social-networks@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [VCARDDAV] draft-ietf-vcarddav-social-networks status
X-BeenThere: vcarddav@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF vcarddav wg mailing list <vcarddav.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/vcarddav>, <mailto:vcarddav-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vcarddav>
List-Post: <mailto:vcarddav@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vcarddav-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vcarddav>, <mailto:vcarddav-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 14:57:36 -0000

As everyone knows, we've had a great deal of trouble getting anyone
who works on social networks to help with the subject draft.  Last
week, at MAAWG, I spoke with some and the feedback was useful:

- Facebook is definitively NOT interested in vCard properties for
social-network information.

- While LinkedIn didn't explicitly say they aren't interested, I got
no response indicating interest.

I think this tells us that we should stop trying to create a set of
properties targeted specifically at social networking.  So I think we
should abandon this draft at this point.  If and when we get actual
interest from the social networking folks, we can take it up again as
an individual submission.

Barry