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

Alexey Melnikov <> Wed, 09 February 2011 09:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06FE03A6958; Wed, 9 Feb 2011 01:02:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.299
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JNYq2xL3JEmM; Wed, 9 Feb 2011 01:02:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AA653A6957; Wed, 9 Feb 2011 01:02:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <>; Wed, 9 Feb 2011 09:02:24 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 09:01:55 +0000
From: Alexey Melnikov <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: Tony Hansen <>
References: <><><> <><> <><> <><><><><><> <> <026901cbc781$a2724ee0$> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
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: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 09:02:19 -0000

Tony Hansen wrote:

> On 2/8/2011 10:46 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>> 08.02.2011 13:16, t.petch пишет:
>>> The problem, at least for URI, is RFC4395, which gives the 
>>> procedures for new
>>> schemes
>>> and failed to consider old schemes.  RFC1738 did not make afs: 
>>> provisional or
>>> historic,
>>> it merely asked that the name be reserved.  IANA, arguably 
>>> incorrectly, places
>>> afs: under
>>> Provisional citing RFC1738 as its source.  But RFC1738 does not tell 
>>> them to do
>>> that!
>> Maybe IANA was guided by the following fact. While RFC 4395 mentions 
>> the Provisional category, it does not give full definition of its 
>> purpose. This might cause misunderstanding of community and other 
>> interesting parties. IANA, due to lack of precise definition decided 
>> that RFC 1738 reserves these names via their provisional 
>> registration. Therefore they put it into corresponding category.
>> But we should note that RFC 4395 says:
>>>   To transition to the new registry, all URL name schemes in the
>>>     existing table should be entered as URI schemes, with 'permanent'
>>>     status.
>> and says nothing about filling the Provisional registry. This should 
>> have caused this problem.
>>> So, arguably, we could tell IANA to create a provisional registry as 
>>> RFC1738
>>> told them to
>>> and make it light weight, no need for IETF/IESG involvement unless 
>>> and until a
>>> move
>>> to Provisional or Permanent is envisaged, using Expert Review in 
>>> other cases of
>>> change.
>>> (I know of no other way of changing things in the IETF, which is 
>>> what I see as a
>>> constraint
>>> we have to accept).
>> Such proposal is not very clear. What do you mean while saying 
>> 'registry per RFC1738'. Such registry is now replaced by what created 
>> by RFC4395. Moreover, since you propose to make it almost not 
>> controlled, possibly with the 'First Come First Served' policies will 
>> create great confusion. I do not think such idea is good.
>>> Or we could write a just-once catch-all RFC that picks up all these 
>>> old ones,
>>> and defines
>>> a procedure for them (ie not a registration, but a procedure for 
>>> registration,
>>> such as
>>> reinforcing the need for a Reserved category and placing those in it 
>>> that should
>>> always have
>>> been in it).
>> During the discussion of this topic in December there was such a 
>> proposal - to create the special Reserved category, but this did not 
>> gain the support. Such category's scope is very contiguous with that 
>> for Provisional one.
> I'm wondering if the authors of RFC 4395 (of which I'm one) should 
> send a note to IANA saying that "afs" and "tn3270" should have been 
> entered into the "Permanent" portion of the URI registry instead of 
> the "Provisional" portion. (And then be done with the topic.)

While I personally like to be done with this topic, I don't think just 
declaring "afs"/"tn3270" permanent is Ok without having proper syntax