gmane.ietf.apps-discuss

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-acct-uri-05.txt

Peter Saint-Andre — 2013-06-17T20:58:19

Based on IESG feedback, added a paragraph about putting a user< at >host
address into the localpart of an 'acct' URI (percent-encoding the
at-sign when doing so).

On 6/17/13 2:53 PM, internet-drafts< at >ietf.org wrote:

I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-acct-uri-05.txt

2013-06-17T20:53:41

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Applications Area Working Group Working Group of the IETF.

Title           : The 'acct' URI Scheme
Author(s)       : Peter Saint-Andre
Filename        : draft-ietf-appsawg-acct-uri-05.txt
Pages           : 9
Date            : 2013-06-17

Abstract:
   This document defines the 'acct' Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)
   scheme as a way to identify a user's account at a service provider,
   irrespective of the particular protocols that can be used to interact
   with the account.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-acct-uri

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-acct-uri-05

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-appsawg-acct-uri-05


Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/interne

Non-proprietary sync (was Re: Is e-mail going to die?

Michiel de Jong — 2013-06-17T11:02:07

That is exactly what "remote storage" tries to propose: a non-proprietary
protocol that does something like Dropbox/GoogleDrive/SkyDrive over
cross-origin HTTP.

We uploaded the -01 version of the I-D last week:

    http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-dejong-remotestorage-01.txt
_______________________________________________
apps-discuss mailing list
apps-discuss< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

Re: Is e-mail going to die?

John R Levine — 2013-06-17T19:26:02

The technology is there, but the usual key distribution problems apply.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl< at >taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly._______________________________________________
apps-discuss mailing list
apps-discuss< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

Re: Non-proprietary sync (was Re: Is e-mail going todie?

Melvin Carvalho — 2013-06-17T17:21:00


The Resource / Container pattern seems to have some traction.  It may be of
interest the way that Linked Data Platform Containers are modelled:

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#linked-data-platform-containers


_______________________________________________
apps-discuss mailing list
apps-discuss< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

Re: Is e-mail going to die?

Patrick Logan — 2013-06-17T17:02:04

Clearly if there will be a "death of email"  it will be a long, slow,
painful death for the reasons given. Almost as clearly, the use of
email has shifted. As people pointed out we hardly distribute photos
via email, we hardly announce things via email.

But as people pointed out, there's still not a good way to send
secure, encrypted, and/or signed messages via email (or any other
standard protocol.) Also "RSS is dead", etc.

My position would be "although email will be here for a long time to
come, the landscape of standard messaging is still wide open".

In the short run I would look at emerging standards like Web Keys [1]
and HTTP Signatures [2] to contribute to a improved messaging systems.

In the long run I would look at something like Named Data Networking
[3] which has a really good general solution to many problems of
messaging today, including email. But NDN is not a new layer 7
protocol. It's a redesign influenced by IP, not dependent on IP,
intended to be deployed alongside IP based on what we k

Re: Non-proprietary sync (was Re: Is e-mail going to die?

Michiel B. de Jong — 2013-06-17T15:36:58

thanks for asking that question! The reason is that the tree structure, 
with folder versioning, allows a client to retrieve the root of a 
subtree, see if its ETag changed, and if not, know for sure that none of 
the contained documents changed. If folders were mere tags/pointers, 
then a client would have to check for changes in each document 
individually, which would be much more work.

Re: Non-proprietary sync (was Re: Is e-mail going todie?

Bob Wyman — 2013-06-17T15:23:48

Reading remoteStorage, I can't help seeing another excuse to rehash the
"folders" vs "labels" debate. "Folders" typically imply some sort of
containment and a unique location-based address for an object while labels
are attributes and allow a single document to be viewed as having a variety
of retrieval specifications. (i.e. you can retrieve based on any attribute
or set of attributes.)

Why do you introduce the complexity of "folders" in this proposal? Why not
just have document PUT and GET and define a "document collection" (aka:
folder) type? Then, "folders" would simply be documents that could be
fetched. One assumes that a 'document collection" would be able to link to
another "document collection" (i.e. either a sub or parent folder) and that
there would be a "well-known" name for that document collection which would
correspond to a "root" folder. Also, it would be good if there were no
binding between a document's retrieval name (URI) and the folder-paths or
set of attributes associated with it. The m

Re: Non-proprietary sync (was Re: Is e-mail going todie?

Melvin Carvalho — 2013-06-17T11:57:29


Also in this space:

The mission of the Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group is to produce a
W3C Recommendation for HTTP-based (RESTful) application integration
patterns using read/write Linked Data. This work will benefit both
small-scale in-browser applications (WebApps) and large-scale Enterprise
Application Integration (EAI) efforts. It will complement SPARQL and will
be compatible with standards for publishing Linked Data, bringing the data
integration features of RDF to RESTful, data-oriented software development

http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/charter

It's the combined effort of about 30 firms including IBM, Fujitsu, Apache,
Oracle, BBC and more.

This is expected to become a W3C REC around March 2014


_______________________________________________
apps-discuss mailing list
apps-discuss< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

Re: Non-proprietary sync (was Re: Is e-mail going todie?

Phillip Hallam-Baker — 2013-06-17T11:42:03

Interesting idea. I was thinking about a similar scheme only with the data
being encrypted on the storage drive and a decryption key issued bound to
each device authorized to read. The idea being to leverage the Ford-Wiener
model of CRM which is coming out of patent very soon.

Much of the protocol complexity of this type of scheme ends up being how
the end user establishes a device as authorized to access their account.
When I wrote Omnibroker I discovered that ended up being about 80% of the
protocol and the actual query-response piece was very straightforward.

Since this piece is applicable to many similar Web Services, I took it out
and made it a separate draft as Web Services Connect:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hallambaker-wsconnect-02

One issue that I have is working out what to call it as " Web Services *"
has been effectively grabbed by the SOAP/WS* crowd. And this is a JSON
protocol. I changed to JSON Connect (JCX) but I don't like that either.





On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Michiel

Non-proprietary sync (was Re: Is e-mail going to die?

Michiel B. de Jong — 2013-06-17T11:08:16

That is exactly what "remote storage" tries to propose: a 
non-proprietary protocol that does something like 
Dropbox/GoogleDrive/SkyDrive over cross-origin HTTP.

We uploaded the -01 version of the I-D last week:

     http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-dejong-remotestorage-01.txt

Re: Is e-mail going to die?

Dave Raggett — 2013-06-17T08:09:31

This is where a federated approach based upon personal zones may help. 
In the EU FP7 project "webinos" [1] we have been exploring the concept 
of a personal zone which encompasses your personal devices and services 
with each device being secured as part of the zone. The zone is exposed 
24x7 by a hub on which can you install personal services. Our 
implementation is based upon Node.JS.  The hub could be hosted by your 
ISP in the cloud, or run on a home gateway device. Finger can then be 
used to find the URI for someone's hub based upon their email address.

We are already seeing browser sync across devices, but only for the same 
brand of browser. Non-proprietary sync is the next step and will require 
some notion akin to the webinos personal zone, as users will in most 
cases have devices and browsers from different vendors. The notion is 
also relevant to managing privacy and security, especially for services 
based upon the Internet of Things. In conclusion, I agree that email is 
here to stay, but f

EPP extensions

John Levine — 2013-06-16T20:13:12

I'm seeing a lot of drafts go by for EPP extensions.  Some are
actively under development, like draft-tan-epp-launchphase, while some
seem to be one-offs like the recent
draft-xie-epp-trademark-mapping-00.  Many, like draft-obispo-epp-idn
and its predecessors, appear to be in active use in live EPP
registries.  

It seems like it would be a good idea to turn the ones that are in
active use or likely to be in active use (such as ones for the
Trademark Clearinghouse required for all of the new ICANN gTLDS) into
RFCs rather than making registries run forever on expired I-Ds.

Is it worth spinning up an eppext WG to handle them, or do it here?

Fwd: I-D Action: draft-bormann-cbor-02.txt

Paul Hoffman — 2013-06-16T19:31:37

Greetings again. Carsten and I have updated CBOR to reflect the request to allow streaming / chunked byte strings and UTF-8 strings. We moved the streaming discussion up in the document and added prettier examples. We also added bigfloats, making them similar to decimal fractions.

--Paul Hoffman

Begin forwarded message:

FW: I-D Action:draft-lanthaler-profile-registry-02.txt

Markus Lanthaler — 2013-06-16T16:06:09

I've just published a new version of my I-D in which I've removed the
registration request for the urn:ietf:params:profile URN subnamespace.

There wasn't the amount of interested I hoped for so I'll try to do what I
think is the minimum required to ensure interoperability. This also means
that the document can now go through the independent stream, i.e., directly
to the RFC editor.

Feedback would of course be much appreciated.


Thanks,
Markus


--
Markus Lanthaler
< at >markuslanthaler




-----Original Message-----
From: i-d-announce-bounces< at >ietf.org [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces< at >ietf.org]
On Behalf Of internet-drafts< at >ietf.org
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 5:53 PM
To: i-d-announce< at >ietf.org
Subject: I-D Action: draft-lanthaler-profile-registry-02.txt


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.


Title           : The IETF Profile URI Registry
Author(s)       : Markus Lanthaler
Filename        : draft-lanthaler-profile-registry-02.txt
Pages           : 5
Date            :

Re: Is e-mail going to die?

Evan Prodromou — 2013-06-16T14:50:08

+1. Please move this discussion elsewhere; it's inappropriate for this list.

-Evan

Re: Is e-mail going to die?

Nico Williams — 2013-06-16T14:48:39

Perhaps I was too quick to dismiss this.  Instead of thinking of a
$.10 per-email charge we might think of periodic settlements between
MTA operators, who might then pass costs on to their users.
Delinquent MTA operators would see that others don't take their
e-mail.  Is there any way to deploy such a scheme?  I think it'd be
like moving a mountain.  I think too many operators would want to
setup something akin to peering agreements and we'd end up with
something not unlike routing.  It would suck.  But it was worth more
thought than I'd thought.

Nico
--

Re: Is e-mail going to die?

Phillip Hallam-Baker — 2013-06-16T14:35:35

The question of whether email will die is silly. There is no way that I am
getting accounts on every proprietary platform people might use. I have a
FaceBook account only to stop other people taking my name there. If someone
sends me mail on Facebook is it is not going to reach me unless it gets
forwarded to my SMTP email.

There have always been closed email communities but open email has always
dominated. Email now means an account identifier <account>< at ><dns-name>.

We can change the SMTP and DNS protocols. The DNS may end up run by
different institutions over time. But continuity with the DNS namespace is
certain.


A more interesting question is whether chat/IM/video is ever going to
escape completely from closed communities. It looked like that was going to
happen but it doesn't seem to have done in the same way as email. People
tell me to get a Yahoo account or a Skype account or whatever just to chat
which is a stupid situation.
_______________________________________________
apps-discuss mailing list

Re: Is e-mail going to die?

Eric Burger — 2013-06-16T14:12:08

I will second Franck's comment, by pointing out that 1.7 MILLION fax machines were sold last year in Japan alone.[1] If we cannot kill off fax, we certainly have no hope of killing off email.


[1] Fackler, Martin, "In High-Tech Japan, the Fax Machines Roll On," The New York Times February 13, 2013, 
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/world/asia/in-japan-the-fax-machine-is-anything-but-a-relic.html

On Jun 15, 2013, at 9:23 PM, Franck Martin <franck< at >peachymango.org> wrote:

Re: Is e-mail going to die? (Jacob Palme)A new wayto solve the spam!

Zhun Guo — 2013-06-16T10:25:52

Dear all:
    for this topic ,  two RFCs is concerning,RFC
4406<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4406/>
 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lyon-senderid-core/) ,RFC
6686<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6686/>
 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6686/)  ,or maybe SPF of Sender ID is
the best way.
   But because of the Cloud Computing，many applications have move to the
cloud. Such as  Google Drive ,Microsoft Office 365 will replace native
office software.If the interconnection of different online office is done,
then the online office can do every thing that Email and  native office can
do . Just like when you know one person's email address,then you can send
email to him ,  whether or not you are in the same website.
    In the market of telecommunications, the interconnection of voice calling
and messaging applications has been realized among different noperators or
different information platforms and it was the interconnection among the
three major telecommunications operators in USA in 200

Re: Is e-mail going to die?

Jiankang Yao — 2013-06-16T08:32:46

Agree with John's comments.
 someone has the google account, someone has facebook account, and others has ..... You need to log on different systems to communicate with different persons in that system.
 but email messages connect with all these systems.
  

 I think that the email will increase instead of dying.
  
 Jiankang Yao

 ------------------ Original ------------------
  From:  "John Levine"<johnl< at >taugh.com>;
 Date:  Sun, Jun 16, 2013 05:18 AM
 To:  "apps-discuss"<apps-discuss< at >ietf.org>; 
 
 Subject:  Re: [apps-discuss] Is e-mail going to die?

 >...

It remains the best way to communicate between entities over the
Internet because it doesn't require that you go poll every different
place that might want to send you something._______________________________________________
apps-discuss mailing list
apps-discuss< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss