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

Mykyta Yevstifeyev <> Mon, 31 January 2011 11:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B815B3A6903; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 03:17:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.199
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ryui7MBWC0XV; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 03:16:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 306ED3A68ED; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 03:16:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by fxm9 with SMTP id 9so5991729fxm.31 for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 03:20:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=vZCp7FujeuAN+7mUVnWqSbxxA1UL2YUM+xGWXHVphJg=; b=JcjgHrT6kd9zkTtBTjHwP5XjmmG0lcLKi6jblxnyY4WPvXdpyrbcCMUxygYkrnpxLk pQF5wfq4MbH+OLs8dL3j6eZ8d5k3mb0Plfn3PJ4f3gwhE+T2dwj55M3jI2OG60Re145p vhr7qYghuu3SiKvcE8+4aqXdZKL7E2nt//+Vw=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=PJKXvJEEGe18H6Vp1Vazvd+2KfJNc4S9yNfDgFC3Bdm7sZYmvmZwVgafsux/96F1U8 yP89vpxyiTqkW+ZtP5xlfr04yXnkLqSOjA3FYlxuW94uG+OiSAtGMewPPjRIPUDjcL2J cRde+XpXcWME6oPf8TV6aXd/4t+tc2SJyj9iI=
Received: by with SMTP id d4mr122584fal.59.1296472810909; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 03:20:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPS id n2sm7292025fam.28.2011. (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 31 Jan 2011 03:20:09 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 13:20:32 +0200
From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ru; rv: Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 11:17:00 -0000

31.01.2011 10:28, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2011, at 9:54 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>> 30.01.2011 20:20, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>> On Jan 30, 2011, at 4:03 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>>>> Hello all,
>>>> I'd like to resume the discussion on 'afs' URI scheme by citing RFC 4395:
>>>>> In some circumstances, it is appropriate to note a URI scheme that
>>>>>     was once in use or registered but for whatever reason is no longer in
>>>>>     common use or the use is not recommended.  In this case, it is
>>>>>     possible for an individual to request that the URI scheme be
>>>>>     registered (newly, or as an update to an existing registration) as
>>>>>     'historical'.  Any scheme that is no longer in common use MAY be
>>>>>     designated as historical; the registration should contain some
>>>>>     indication to where the scheme was previously defined or documented.
>>>> So there is a sense in moving this scheme to Historical category since it fully matches to these guidelines.  Therefore I do not consider such action as inappropriate for the 'afs' URI scheme.
>>> No, there is no reason to publish a new document about a
>>> scheme that was never used.  It is obsolete.
>> Roy,
>> I think that the document like that may be found here: is suitable for 'afs' URI scheme.  This is the same situation as with the 'mailserver' URI scheme.
> 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.

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.

> ....Roy