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

Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com> Sun, 30 January 2011 11:59 UTC

Return-Path: <evnikita2@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56C203A694A; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 03:59:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.214
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TYWF3YHUHqjy; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 03:59:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by core3.amsl.com (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; d=gmail.com; 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; d=gmail.com; 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 10.223.73.198 with SMTP id r6mr4692626faj.14.1296388971584; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 04:02:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.134]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n3sm7002378fax.31.2011.01.30.04.02.49 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 30 Jan 2011 04:02:50 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4D455380.6040103@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 14:03:12 +0200
From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ru; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: URI <uri@w3.org>, "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
References: %3C4D26B005.2060909@gmail.com%3E <4D2C7755.5080908@gmail.com> <81F42F63D5BB344ABF294F8E80990C7902782BBA@MTV-EXCHANGE.microfocus.com>
In-Reply-To: <81F42F63D5BB344ABF294F8E80990C7902782BBA@MTV-EXCHANGE.microfocus.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040403050504050705050707"
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=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