Re: [apps-discuss] [Uri-review] tn3270

John,

As you say,
"There is almost certainly no harm in keeping the URI definition
and probably some harm in getting rid of it. ". So it should be asked -
what harm is there in moving the 'tns3270' URI scheme to
'Historic'. At the moment no acceptable definition seems to be
found. Some RFCs discussing issues connected with IBM 3270
Emulation are RFC 1041 and 2355, but they are Proposed and Draft
Standards. I should repeat that at the moment the technology
of IBM 3270 emulation is no longer used. It is not an acceptable
way for the Internet Community at all to remain any standards
no longer needed alive. Maybe this is harmful, but not revising
current standards to make them modern and needed.

So IMO there is no reason to leave the 'tns3270' URI scheme as current
as well as 'mailserver' one.

Best regards,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev

19.11.2010 10:11, John C Klensin wrote:
> While I'm no fan of the 3270 (and wasn't back when I was doing
> programming that depended on them), I have to agree with Lyndon.
> There is almost certainly no harm in keeping the URI definition
> and probably some harm in getting rid of it.   One could argue
> that the spec should be retired because it is inadequate and
> obsolete, but inventing and applying that criterion is IMO
> unreasonable unless we intend to start applying the "time out
> and die" provisions of RFC 2026 for the first time in history.
>
>      john
>
>
> --On Thursday, November 18, 2010 21:57 -0800 "Lyndon Nerenberg
> (VE6BBM/VE7TFX)"<lyndon@orthanc.ca>  wrote:
>
>>> Well, AFAIK, 3270 emulation is still in some limited use in
>>> commercial legacy mixed-platform environments, but I've never
>>> heard of practical usage of the 'tn3270' URI scheme in that
>>> context -- all such business applications are likely to
>>> operate based on tightly controlled local configuration of
>>> the access points and not driven by some kind of browser
>>> software operating on 'tn3270' URIs.
>> That's an awfully presumptive generalization to make about how
>> other people's businesses operate.  That aside, "must be
>> accessible to the global Internet" isn't a criteria for (or
>> against) standardization (or registration).  Standards can
>> also apply inside walled gardens.
>> ...
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list
> Uri-review@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>