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

["t.petch" <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tony Hansen" <[e-mail]>
To: "Mykyta Yevstifeyev" <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>; "URI" <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 10:29 PM

<snip>

> > 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.)

Tony

It would be a step forward, but it would still leave the problem that the IANA 
website refers enquirers to RFC1738 which patently does not meet the 
requirements of RFC4395, which is why I see the choice as 
- either having a new category which is best efforts and does not come
up to RFC4395
- or producing an RFC which takes the schemes in question to Historic
or Provisional.

For me, the latter seems wasted effort, the former is the only one worth 
spending time on but perhaps someone has a third (or fourth) option.

Tom Petch

>      Tony Hansen
>      [e-mail]
>