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

[Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[e-mail]>]

01.02.2011 17:23, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote:
> Mykyta,
>
> On 1 Feb 2011, at 15:02, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>> Ben,
>>
>> Such action might be performed by simple request of IESG.  RFC 4395 says:
>>
>> Transition from 'provisional' to 'historical' may be
>>    requested by anyone authorized to update the provisional
>>    registration.
>>
>>
>> Since that is not clear who is authorized to change it, IESG should be considered for such action (there is not this in the document, this is my opinion).  So IMO IESG should issue the community call on reclassification and then request this action from IANA.
>>
>> And in this way there won't be what you say - unnecessary docs.
> So you've saved an I-D being written but still used IESG time which could be much better spent on other things that actually provide value to the community.
I really do not consider the action I propose as that 'requires great 
amount of time'.  Moreover, there is a strong consensus it is not used 
and will not be used so no problems will appear, IMO.
> Also, you failed to answer the question I asked though, namely:
>>> What is the real value and benefit in doing all the work to move them to historic? No one uses them so no one benefits from tweaking the category they are placed in IMO.
> Unless there is a good answer to that question to justify changing their classification, I don't see any point in spending time discussing how one might go about reclassifying them.
You should better ask the authors of RFC 4395 this, but not me.  If this 
wasn't needed, it wouldn't appear here.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev
> Ben
>
>