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

Barry Leiba <> Tue, 01 February 2011 15:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F40523A6CDC; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:37:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.858
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.858 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.119, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tQczLLu1Durc; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:37:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90D7C3A6C11; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:37:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iyi42 with SMTP id 42so6681495iyi.31 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 07:40:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=C2DddsRHDx5GL3bxpVUW/XHXkQF0vM5dwZdLIwF94tQ=; b=KGbZpIr8lH/pkyXyxM13kS04/Z2DMx1bPt4/Ko/HO9UVTWFumjQHlyth4jrYzyzsOr IZHzdUaRX3HdpMfjsV8QgwuO5+AHMW4ew+x7I+f57QTXClAqoIq8z1hoYs4MX4VCqAsQ JQD/QrYRlaCJpdd20BDaqqwRA+xaFy3WtNevM=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=jBIpwf0ERW+NROTZDP2I7XmWznAW2NHqsaf6Kwi1iHa4NjLWk3IJsz3ElbUjCGnQ/S QtO7uj2SOHcO6Z3U1SsQ0Aw129GTbEe6IPcpXrPfGBK0XOmJ9CEzno885OoXLu+y2MJ2 JgFUlP4019KoU4JIIiufi8sm4Ra/NIHhoOLA8=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id o6mr8070078icz.132.1296574859706; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 07:40:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:40:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 10:40:59 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: BOMtKxO2qyoM8L52o90wW53idsk
Message-ID: <>
From: Barry Leiba <>
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 15:37:47 -0000

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev <> wrote:
>> 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.

It could be done as an IESG management item.  So... An AD has to
request it by putting it on a telechat agenda.  The IESG secretary has
to track it.  The IESG has to discuss it on the telechat (and the
scribe has to transcribe the discussion).  The secretary has to put it
in the minutes, and the IESG has to review the minutes.  IANA has to
make the change, and ensure that they do it right, which probably
means double-checking with the AD, who will review the IANA action.  A
notice has to be sent out.

No, that's not a *huge* amount of work.  But it *is* work and time,
spent by volunteers who are already working nights and weekends to get
their volunteer jobs done in addition to what their employers are
paying them for.

I don't know how the government works in Ukraine, but here in the U.S.
our Congress often comes out with silly "resolutions".  A few years
ago, they voted on and passed a resolution stating that Christmas is
important, for example.  Someone has to draft the resolution, it has
to be read at the meeting, someone has to speak in support of it --
sometimes multiple someones -- and a vote has to be taken.  Of course,
it passes.  But it accomplishes nothing, and it's wasted everyone's

This is like that.  Let's not waste everyone's time.
In fact, let's not waste any more time discussing it.
(I'll point out, Mykyta, that you do not appear to have rough
consensus to do this, and there seems to be strong consensus NOT to.
Please accept that; it's how the IETF works.)