Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme
"t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com> Tue, 08 February 2011 12:20 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 D25763A7119 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Feb 2011 04:20:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.013
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.013 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.158, BAYES_00=-2.599, FRT_ADOBE2=2.455]
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 9sFWIduj8VJI for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Feb 2011 04:20:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.btconnect.com (c2bthomr13.btconnect.com [213.123.20.131]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B73573A6DE4 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Feb 2011 04:20:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from host86-156-136-65.range86-156.btcentralplus.com (HELO pc6) ([86.156.136.65]) by c2bthomr13.btconnect.com with SMTP id BPT73178; Tue, 08 Feb 2011 12:20:27 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <026901cbc781$a2724ee0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Ben Niven-Jenkins <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
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> <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>
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 12:16:20 +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=Neutral-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0302.4D513509.0097, actions=tag
X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2bthomr13.btconnect.com
X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B020A.4D51350D.0007, 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
Cc: 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: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 12:20:28 -0000
----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Masinter" <masinter@adobe.com> To: "Ben Niven-Jenkins" <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>; "Mykyta Yevstifeyev" <evnikita2@gmail.com> Cc: <apps-discuss@ietf.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 5:46 AM > I think in general the overhead in maintaining current information about old registered values is too high, and that it *is* worth time thinking about how we could lower the overhead for registry maintenance. > > There are a number of related issues raised about various registered values, including MIME type, charset, and URI schemes. > > Ideally a registry is a place where a new implementor can go to discover both the theory and current practice for use of registered values on the internet. I think the current processes cope OK with theory (although the overhead of updating the registry when there is a new spec is high, it might be acceptable) but not with practice (where implementation and deployment sometimes is in advance of, or divergent from, the formal specs). > > The situation is more acute in areas where protocols and formats are undergoing rapid development. > > So I agree that writing a document marking 'afs' as 'obsolete' is make-work and not-worth anyone's time, but how could we make it easier (light-weight annotation) without subjecting ourselves to DOS of unreliable annotation? 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! 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). 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). Tom Petch > Larry >
- 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