Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme

"Roy T. Fielding" <> Mon, 31 January 2011 08:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFD0C3A6BBA; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 00:25:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.01
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.411, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q8kCxFMGANZp; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 00:25:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 889FD3A6BBC; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 00:25:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44C6A674060; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 00:28:30 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; h=subject:mime-version :content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to; q=dns;; b=H2FNaaNK8bHaTamx T7F1J9Sh94ZsuGe9zX+l1rrI6uaxOk7/VQpurvCifqTeF9njbuLN5X6lOQLmiR6x 0BdGupoPBmqeeVlSjGW9NFMLWG8hBvsLSCk8bKMybD8LISiYT0xgIv+5xE0H7YUK myVoz8uicvADBh8BDdmPr+cO8Bg=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed;; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to;; bh=fQWlrTxDJSKVMnc4bW0ji/87xSY=; b=mcpAzGGViQjaKaq0cH8/lZ0fGCY0 3yzj6S7+Xn+0JbQcNCENJNQCziDz/0qEqEeYXy9vu02nZ/+51iGhhURjJG2DB2QB xrL81lRvZA2w9XOScfXgpz3eFPPhXZ5Iz9PMG5deX6T0GxmXqvw/qRVDIc85p9Ly XzXOGyudAgV0XEw=
Received: from [] ( []) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id E457D674058; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 00:28:29 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 00:28:29 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Cc: URI <>, "" <>,
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 08:25:17 -0000

On Jan 30, 2011, at 9:54 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> 30.01.2011 20:20, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> On Jan 30, 2011, at 4:03 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>>> Hello all,
>>> I'd like to resume the discussion on 'afs' URI scheme by citing RFC 4395:
>>>> In some circumstances, it is appropriate to note a URI scheme that
>>>>    was once in use or registered but for whatever reason is no longer in
>>>>    common use or the use is not recommended.  In this case, it is
>>>>    possible for an individual to request that the URI scheme be
>>>>    registered (newly, or as an update to an existing registration) as
>>>>    'historical'.  Any scheme that is no longer in common use MAY be
>>>>    designated as historical; the registration should contain some
>>>>    indication to where the scheme was previously defined or documented.
>>> So there is a sense in moving this scheme to Historical category since it fully matches to these guidelines.  Therefore I do not consider such action as inappropriate for the 'afs' URI scheme.
>> No, there is no reason to publish a new document about a
>> scheme that was never used.  It is obsolete.
> Roy,
> I think that the document like that may be found here: is suitable for 'afs' URI scheme.  This is the same situation as with the 'mailserver' URI scheme.

No, there is no reason to have that document either.  We don't need
these useless exercises in bit pushing -- there are plenty of other
drafts that need writing about actual protocols that were (and are)
used on the Web as identifiers.  afs, nfs, tn3270, and mailserver are
all examples of schemes that someone once thought might be a good idea,
but were in fact never used on the Internet.  They are obsolete.