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

"t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com> Wed, 09 February 2011 15:35 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 7DDFD3A67A2 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Feb 2011 07:35:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.293
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.293 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.306, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 z21CsFYoomzs for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Feb 2011 07:35:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.btconnect.com (c2beaomr06.btconnect.com [213.123.26.184]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9655A3A6405 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Feb 2011 07:35:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from host86-156-136-65.range86-156.btcentralplus.com (HELO pc6) ([86.156.136.65]) by c2beaomr06.btconnect.com with SMTP id BXB26223; Wed, 09 Feb 2011 15:35:57 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <029701cbc866$1b87dfe0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
To: "Tony Hansen" <tony@att.com>
References: %3C4D26B005.2060909@gmail.com%3E <4D2C7755.5080908@gmail.com><81F42F63D5BB344ABF294F8E80990C7902782BBA@MTV-EXCHANGE.microfocus.com><4D455380.6040103@gmail.com> <3792F8F3-D01B-4B05-9E73-59228F09FE5C@gbiv.com><4D464EA4.7090303@gmail.com> <7ED44745-7DBA-4372-BE39-22061DC26DF2@gbiv.com><4D46CE52.6030503@vpnc.org> <4D47DD4A.7040503@gmail.com><06BA884E-D1C7-4783-BBE6-A6B21DE013B7@niven-jenkins.co.uk><4D482071.8050202@gmail.com><CDAB7832-EBF9-4ECE-B8D1-09BA39BDF4B8@niven-jenkins.co.uk><4D48267A.1030800@gmail.com><96CC61EE-81BD-43CB-A83F-78E67B2DA7A5@niven-jenkins.co.uk> <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D058EEE61B9@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com> <026901cbc781$a2724ee0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net><4D516551.1060108@gmail.com> <4D51B5BB.8070204@att.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 15:31:50 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
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=0001.0A0B0302.4D52B45D.002C, actions=TAG
X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaomr06.btconnect.com
X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B020A.4D52B45E.0032, 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: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 15:35:52 -0000

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tony Hansen" <tony@att.com>
To: "Mykyta Yevstifeyev" <evnikita2@gmail.com>
Cc: <uri-review@ietf.org>rg>; "URI" <uri@w3.org>rg>; <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
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
>      tony@att.com
>