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

Ben Niven-Jenkins <> Tue, 01 February 2011 15:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE3DC3A6E0F for <>; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:47:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.539
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I7vZsVjPUm3y for <>; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:47:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 182183A6E86 for <>; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:46:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([] by with esmtpa (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <>) id 1PkIUO-0006Yd-Bu; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 15:49:56 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Ben Niven-Jenkins <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 15:49:54 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544
X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912
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 15:47:17 -0000


This will be my last mail on this topic as I've spent too long on it already.

On 1 Feb 2011, at 15:27, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> 01.02.2011 17:23, Ben Niven-Jenkins 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.

Let me be more explicit. IMO spending any amount of time >0 on this is pointless.
>> 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.

RFC4395 states "Any scheme that is no longer in common use MAY be designated as historical". You're the one pushing for that optional action to be taken, not the authors of RFC4395 so you're the one that should justify why it is worthwhile taking that action.