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

["t.petch" <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Hoffman" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 3:59 PM

> 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.)

No, looks spot on to me, so keep on doing whatever the opposite of 
backing down is.

Tom Petch.