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

[Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[e-mail]>]

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:

>    o  If no permanent, citable specification for the URI scheme
>        definition is included, credible reasons for not providing it
>        should be given.
>     o  A valid Security Considerations section, as required by Section 6
>        of [3  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395#ref-3>].
>     o  If the scheme definition does not meet the guidelines laid out in
>        Section 2  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395#section-2>, the differences and reasons SHOULD be noted.
>
Therefore, there are no other possibility either to remain it as 
Provisional or re-register it as Permanent.  Moreover, Section 4 mentions:

> once in use or registered but for whatever reason is no longer in
>     common use
and the 'afs' scheme meets these criteria.  So the conclusion is obvious.

As for the proposal to de-assign the scheme registration, the procedures 
for such action are not defined anywhere.

All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>