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

Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com> Mon, 31 January 2011 11:17 UTC

Return-Path: <evnikita2@gmail.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 B815B3A6903; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 03:17:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.199
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ryui7MBWC0XV; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 03:16:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by core3.amsl.com (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; d=gmail.com; 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; d=gmail.com; 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 10.223.83.4 with SMTP id d4mr122584fal.59.1296472810909; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 03:20:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.134]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n2sm7292025fam.28.2011.01.31.03.20.09 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 31 Jan 2011 03:20:09 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4D469B00.3030404@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 13:20:32 +0200
From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ru; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <7ED44745-7DBA-4372-BE39-22061DC26DF2@gbiv.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: URI <uri@w3.org>, "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>, apps-discuss@ietf.org
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: 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: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-melnikov-mailserver-uri-to-historic/ 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.
Roy,

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.

Mykyta
> ....Roy