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

"t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com> Tue, 01 February 2011 15:43 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfc@btconnect.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CCE53A6CF1 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:43:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.41
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.41 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.189, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UL-6Kv2WB2Nv for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:43:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.btconnect.com (c2bthomr09.btconnect.com [213.123.20.127]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 532503A6C1D for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:43:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from host217-44-202-151.range217-44.btcentralplus.com (HELO pc6) ([217.44.202.151]) by c2bthomr09.btconnect.com with SMTP id BPD05300; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 15:46:56 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <020a01cbc21e$57245f40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
To: "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
References: %3C4D26B005.2060909@gmail.com%3E<4D2C7755.5080908@gmail.com> <81F42F63D5BB344ABF294F8E80990C7902782BBA@MTV-EXCHANGE.microfocus.com> <4D455380.6040103@gmail.com> <3792F8F3-D01B-4B05-9E73-59228F09FE5C@gbiv.com> <4D464EA4.7090303@gmail.com><7ED44745-7DBA-4372-BE39-22061DC26DF2@gbiv.com> <4D46CE52.6030503@vpnc.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 15:42:49 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0302.4D482AE3.00BC, actions=tag
X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2bthomr09.btconnect.com
X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0204.4D482AF3.0084, ss=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2010-07-22 22:03:31, dmn=2009-09-10 00:05:08, mode=single engine
X-Junkmail-IWF: false
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 15:43:45 -0000

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
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.