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

Mykyta Yevstifeyev <> Tue, 01 February 2011 15:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 030413A6C27; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:24:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.217
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.217 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.382, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hi-BYlim5CIl; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:24:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6B403A6C05; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:24:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ewy8 with SMTP id 8so3486037ewy.31 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 07:27:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=dcKy7DdL56/jeJBEkmdssju6dPMqBazQwnCghhbE1JQ=; b=ptYbNVfPLOtgU9GTlYCJmUdNejWkHdB+Yz+0wyfNo7OyIC+wUpAse4/0WXOVjaT1+g xRhDFdVYViPPQSM5z1I9aDa2YBce3wGUfGKgxz0MXZHBG39JRW4guoSsYNiOMhB25D4c Qt5FhLJnI1mOkkciBm09rrGhOQDtFv2BZn6F4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=xn0oXBsloP4vkdhECN8fFhm3s69C5EASdvXuuPguArZ0Kf4MW2e0fi4gQI/qBAozhC 4Q8l1dydMX3NHEWz2hY6P1IBGM/AcbTjh6mZsTluWLNZsJjsYxwLlulHIKJsbb3kL/cQ MXj00CFM+EGA+vQZOcNAKypPX37hE42edVJkU=
Received: by with SMTP id s20mr3068347mur.37.1296574053174; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 07:27:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPS id a6sm1245303fak.1.2011. (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 01 Feb 2011 07:27:32 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 17:27:54 +0200
From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ru; rv: Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ben Niven-Jenkins <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 15:24:18 -0000

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