Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme
Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com> Wed, 09 February 2011 10:03 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 68A173A697A; Wed, 9 Feb 2011 02:03:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.549
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, 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 6+5+e0csII2H; Wed, 9 Feb 2011 02:03:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D47AE3A683B; Wed, 9 Feb 2011 02:03:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by gyd12 with SMTP id 12so3047966gyd.31 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 09 Feb 2011 02:03:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=nqb05aX1kH6voehcxXem/49oFcBSndqG57v/inNVKeE=; b=QEfCtXr6BTp3r3CblkVM7Dvhm44cOqWvu4fj8APOx6+ZO9lSWwvW69SNH7VkKKCFnS PJyhmWBJQIMp+6qDBnVFggB8QbZMwyvwXnYN9YWn90pC81IJGxtbwLpl6VuQ8/ehuPJC FCqX7Lu1Xqn27GzkBXnIhGVsjp3fn5CVfxpmg=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=F6rCTq9ybuHt+42Q5JTnmlKorI5mXTqi7bbVVR/VEspa5JAi4w7VZoATQPfdSgpXhE XZ5gSYrZHfxv0SxKSyO/R5bmI1ke4P/Y4w0xIinpxdJu6Qt3pyKHKrzLaXnu44WXfSe8 y7U681bdsEnmMMxcOQCfszKbtoBd5ywQqp7PY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.151.42.18 with SMTP id u18mr1401256ybj.269.1297245807519; Wed, 09 Feb 2011 02:03:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.151.26.2 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Feb 2011 02:03:27 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4D525803.6070701@isode.com>
References: <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> <4D47DD4A.7040503@gmail.com> <06BA884E-D1C7-4783-BBE6-A6B21DE013B7@niven-jenkins.co.uk> <4D482071.8050202@gmail.com> <CDAB7832-EBF9-4ECE-B8D1-09BA39BDF4B8@niven-jenkins.co.uk> <4D48267A.1030800@gmail.com> <96CC61EE-81BD-43CB-A83F-78E67B2DA7A5@niven-jenkins.co.uk> <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D058EEE61B9@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com> <026901cbc781$a2724ee0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <4D516551.1060108@gmail.com> <4D51B5BB.8070204@att.com> <4D525803.6070701@isode.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 12:03:27 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTik=akHLUs2Q5SjSC0VmJ5nU7_s24qpgApzr7bxW@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="KOI8-R"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>, URI <uri@w3.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: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 10:03:20 -0000
Hello all, Let me cite the URI schmes regsitry from 28 November 2005 --- Citations starts---- Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) SCHEMES (last updated 28 November 2005) This is the Official IANA Registry of URI Schemes In the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) definition [RFC3986,RFC1738] there is a field, called "scheme", to identify the type of resource and access method. [....] Reserved URI Scheme Names: afs Andrew File System global file names tn3270 Interactive 3270 emulation sessions mailserver Access to data available from mail servers ---Citations ends--- And then from February 2007, provisional category: ---Ctation starts--- Index of /assignments/uri-schemes/prov Name Last modified Size Description -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Parent Directory 23-Feb-2007 11:55 - iax2 23-Feb-2007 11:54 3k -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache/1.3.27 Server at www.iana.org Port 80 ---Citation ends---- The same is for Sepember 2007 and the latest archival entry from 23 October 2007 here: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes The question is - who added the sheme to the regsitry? Mykyta Yevstifeyev 2011/2/9, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>: > Tony Hansen wrote: > >> On 2/8/2011 10:46 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: >> >>> 08.02.2011 13:16, t.petch пишет: >>> >>>> The problem, at least for URI, is RFC4395, which gives the >>>> procedures for new >>>> schemes >>>> and failed to consider old schemes. RFC1738 did not make afs: >>>> provisional or >>>> historic, >>>> it merely asked that the name be reserved. IANA, arguably >>>> incorrectly, places >>>> afs: under >>>> Provisional citing RFC1738 as its source. But RFC1738 does not tell >>>> them to do >>>> that! >>> >>> Maybe IANA was guided by the following fact. While RFC 4395 mentions >>> the Provisional category, it does not give full definition of its >>> purpose. This might cause misunderstanding of community and other >>> interesting parties. IANA, due to lack of precise definition decided >>> that RFC 1738 reserves these names via their provisional >>> registration. Therefore they put it into corresponding category. >>> >>> But we should note that RFC 4395 says: >>> >>>> To transition to the new registry, all URL name schemes in the >>>> existing table should be entered as URI schemes, with 'permanent' >>>> status. >>> >>> and says nothing about filling the Provisional registry. This should >>> have caused this problem. >>> >>>> So, arguably, we could tell IANA to create a provisional registry as >>>> RFC1738 >>>> told them to >>>> and make it light weight, no need for IETF/IESG involvement unless >>>> and until a >>>> move >>>> to Provisional or Permanent is envisaged, using Expert Review in >>>> other cases of >>>> change. >>>> (I know of no other way of changing things in the IETF, which is >>>> what I see as a >>>> constraint >>>> we have to accept). >>> >>> Such proposal is not very clear. What do you mean while saying >>> 'registry per RFC1738'. Such registry is now replaced by what created >>> by RFC4395. Moreover, since you propose to make it almost not >>> controlled, possibly with the 'First Come First Served' policies will >>> create great confusion. I do not think such idea is good. >>> >>>> Or we could write a just-once catch-all RFC that picks up all these >>>> old ones, >>>> and defines >>>> a procedure for them (ie not a registration, but a procedure for >>>> registration, >>>> such as >>>> reinforcing the need for a Reserved category and placing those in it >>>> that should >>>> always have >>>> been in it). >>> >>> During the discussion of this topic in December there was such a >>> proposal - to create the special Reserved category, but this did not >>> gain the support. Such category's scope is very contiguous with that >>> for Provisional one. >> >> I'm wondering if the authors of RFC 4395 (of which I'm one) should >> send a note to IANA saying that "afs" and "tn3270" should have been >> entered into the "Permanent" portion of the URI registry instead of >> the "Provisional" portion. (And then be done with the topic.) > > While I personally like to be done with this topic, I don't think just > declaring "afs"/"tn3270" permanent is Ok without having proper syntax > specificications. > >
- Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme Roy T. Fielding
- Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme Roy T. Fielding
- Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme Paul Hoffman
- Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme Julian Reschke
- Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme Roy T. Fielding
- Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme Ben Niven-Jenkins
- Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme Lars Eggert
- Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme Ben Niven-Jenkins
- Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme Barry Leiba
- Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme t.petch
- Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme t.petch
- Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme Ben Niven-Jenkins
- Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme John Levine
- Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme Larry Masinter
- Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme t.petch
- Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme Tony Hansen
- [apps-discuss] URI registrywas: Re: The state of … Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme t.petch
- Re: [apps-discuss] URI registrywas: Re: The state… t.petch
- Re: [apps-discuss] URI registry (was: Re: The sta… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [apps-discuss] URI registry Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [apps-discuss] URI registry Graham Klyne
- Re: [apps-discuss] URI registry Tony Hansen
- Re: [apps-discuss] URI registry Martin J. Dürst