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

Ben Niven-Jenkins <> Tue, 01 February 2011 11:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D40583A6914 for <>; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 03:20:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.535
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.535 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.064, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CvyjuP+0eWLU for <>; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 03:20:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B7D43A6CC6 for <>; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 03:20:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([] by with esmtpa (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <>) id 1PkEKs-0003Q6-Gk; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 11:23:50 +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 11:23:49 +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
Cc: Paul Hoffman <>,
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 11:20:35 -0000


On 1 Feb 2011, at 10:15, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:

> 31.01.2011 16:59, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> On 1/31/11 12:28 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: 
>>> No, there is no reason to have that document either.  We don't need 
>>> these useless exercises in bit pushing -- there are plenty of other 
>>> drafts that need writing about actual protocols that were (and are) 
>>> used on the Web as identifiers.  afs, nfs, tn3270, and mailserver are 
>>> all examples of schemes that someone once thought might be a good idea, 
>>> but were in fact never used on the Internet.  They are obsolete. 
>> +1 
>> On 1/31/11 3:20 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: 
>> > Since these schemes are in Provisional category, it means that they are 
>> > 'waiting for specification'. If no-one specifies them, they should be 
>> > moved to Historical. That's clear, IMO. 
>> -1 
>> Mykyta, you are approximately the only person who seems to have a problem understanding that standards organizations like the IETF sometimes don't follow through on what they thought were good ideas and sometimes don't document that. Your response is to generate many useless efforts to clean up the IETF specs instead of just doing what everyone else does, which is to ask a question, find the answer, and move on. It feels like you are wasting lots of people's time for the benefit of no one other than maybe yourself. (If there are others who feel that Mykyta's efforts are worth our time, by all means speak up and I'm happy to back down here.) 
> Paul, Roy, and all,
> What RFC 4395 says is that all URI schemes ever registered fall into three categories: Permanent, Provisional and Historical.  There are no other cases the URI scheme may be classified as.
> RFC 1738, in its Section 4 mentioned the 'afs' URI scheme as reserved for further specifying.  Following the creation of URI schemes registry the scheme was added to Provisional category, since it does not appear to appropriate for registration as Permanent or Historical.
> RFC 4395 sets clear criteria for all the categories.  The 'afs' URI scheme may not be classified as Permanent, because of the lack of what mentioned in Section 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.6 and 2.7 of RFC 4395.  This scheme is not appropriate for Provisional because of the points described in Section 3 of this document, especially the cited below:

I think the exact category these schemes are recorded under is not the key issue here.

These schemes were registered because it was believed they would be used but no-one has actually used them.

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.

One could argue that it is good housekeeping etc. but given the effort to write a draft, have it reviewed and taken through the IESG to become an RFC that no-one will read (because no-one uses the scheme in the first place) just doesn't seem a good use of the community's time and resources IMO.