IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] open issues with acct-uri spec

Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> Mon, 19 November 2012 08:53 UTC

Return-Path: <masinter@adobe.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 AA65121F8533 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 00:53:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.066
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.066 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.534, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lNfMmCYEhBYr for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 00:53:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod6og105.obsmtp.com (exprod6og105.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.189]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18ED421F850E for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 00:53:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from outbound-smtp-1.corp.adobe.com ([192.150.11.134]) by exprod6ob105.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUKnzi74wOWXNYsMZlQbRxSjek9Gx88nm@postini.com; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 00:53:36 PST
Received: from inner-relay-4.eur.adobe.com (inner-relay-4.adobe.com [193.104.215.14]) by outbound-smtp-1.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id qAJ8oe1v028468; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 00:50:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nacas01.corp.adobe.com (nacas01.corp.adobe.com [10.8.189.99]) by inner-relay-4.eur.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id qAJ8rSXL007672; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 00:53:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.95]) by nacas01.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.99]) with mapi; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 00:53:27 -0800
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
To: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>, John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 00:53:25 -0800
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] open issues with acct-uri spec
Thread-Index: AQHNvB0qnaWn81ttYUOZuQjiNp3TcZfc2HUAgBQSHcA=
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D1E37027548@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
References: <F4434DAC-80F4-41AE-9B09-C2DAE5BB887B@ve7jtb.com> <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70F6714AB@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70F6714AB@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: 'Graham Klyne' <GK@ninebynine.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] open issues with acct-uri spec
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: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 08:53:36 -0000

Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote Tuesday, November 06, 2012 5:10 AM
> If there's a port, you have to specify a protocol, in which case acct:
> doesn't make sense to me.

I see quite a bit of discussion about URI scheme guidelines.

RFC 4395 really needs updating. This kind of advice SHOULD be in the BCP for guidelines for new URI schemes: 

You have to decide whether the scheme is protocol based (in which it really is tied to the protocol whether http, ftp, imap .. and has port and can have an IPv6 or IPv4 address)
Or it is *Not* protocol based and no port is needed, like mailto (with a host name but no port and no raw addresses) or tel:,mid:, cid:  with no host name at all.

However, I think the update of RFC 4395 was taken up by the IRI working group which had little attention on it. 

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-4395bis-irireg-04 expired.  Actually, quite a bit got re-written, but I don't remember any review comments.
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=rfc4395&url2=draft-ietf-iri-4395bis-irireg-04.txt

Now, if apps-discuss is willing to put so much energy into a single URI scheme definition, perhaps some energy could be put into updating the guidelines.

Maybe someone who hasn't been working on this topic for 20 years could find more energy to work on an update?

Larry

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email