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

Mykyta Yevstifeyev <> Sun, 30 January 2011 11:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56C203A694A; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 03:59:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.214
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.214 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.576, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TYWF3YHUHqjy; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 03:59:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1A0E3A696E; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 03:59:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by fxm9 with SMTP id 9so5189400fxm.31 for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 04:02:51 -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 :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=NacpH+YwbnJBRNmuuIwGM9X1+82Trn8R31DmApd9jP4=; b=ZabW+O68pbgHYx+zUu7LmgOImIsxL7N2Fr9A3UTTAlkDhrk7l4j6chsFNbRr2E1naQ c+6+8CC6QJ86tgtaxNZQvyocpLr6SfhoNxb6rtZGDS6kzZJyughdP4RPk73uPKVmejuK lnZMFB67q+L+qVTweP5nVV+McVyB6MLP3heoc=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type; b=knFbbDY2PXRnYySo2N0nwI1Ma8HMBTHJMG9fYyLH0Ef7HHRnVPoGkTyjnxoBnc60ei PdTW7PX37XqoHaulV+nqssPLgGPF7MW44sMb2LGBB9oy74tOPhgAG8eYS5XMDY37YAR1 ivuBqqM94mpc85u0YbB7W+TDuBdAEJI7BFtyE=
Received: by with SMTP id r6mr4692626faj.14.1296388971584; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 04:02:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPS id n3sm7002378fax.31.2011. (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 30 Jan 2011 04:02:50 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 14:03:12 +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: URI <>, "" <>, "" <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040403050504050705050707"
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: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 11:59:42 -0000

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.

Any other thoughts as for this?

All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev