Re: [apps-discuss] [Uri-review] [Fwd: I-D Action:draft-melnikov-mailserver-uri-to-historic-00.txt]

[Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[e-mail]>]

Hello all,

Some notes on discussed topic. At the moment
there are some implementatiom of AFS mentioned
below. One of them is in the Linux kernel starting
from 2.6.10, but it is incomplete. There are some
other implemenations. You can find some information
on this topic here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_file_system

As for tns3720 it is a telnet scheme for access to
IBM 3720 terminal. As this terminal were started to
be produced in 1972, so now it is OK to
move it to 'Historic'. This service is not
being used any more.

As for AFS, I think it shouldn't be moved to
'Historic' - there are some implementation
and it remains been used somewhere.

As for 'mailserver', it really needs to be
moved to 'historic' as there are really no specifications
of use.

Thank you for your time.

All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev

17.11.2010 22:49, Alfred � wrote:
> My apologies for cross-posting, but this should perhaps reach a
> broader audience.   I suggest to send feedback to the uri-review
> at ietf.org mailing list, because Alexey sent his I-D announcement
> there as well.
>
>
> At Wed, 17 Nov 2010 17:26:32 +0000 , Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>
>> FYI. I've asked on Apps-discuss about deprecating the mailserver:
>> URIs and I've heard several voices in favor of doing that.
>>
>> I will be asking Peter Saint-Andre to sponsor this document.
>>
>> ...
>>
>>     Filename        : draft-melnikov-mailserver-uri-to-historic-00.txt
>> ...
>
> There are two more, apparently natively orphaned URI schemes listed
> as 'provisional' in the IANA registry, both mentioned in RFC 1630
> for the first time, and later again in RFC 1738, but never formally
> registered and, AFAICS, still lacking any publicly available
> specification:
>
>     a)  tn3270
>
>     b)  afs
>
>
> A quick Google search does not reveal any hints on definitions and/or
> actual use.  Some W3C web pages consider these as "reserved" names.
>
> Apparently none of the various RFCs on Telnet extensions for TN3270
> and the somehow related MIB module specifications mention the 'tn3270'
> URI scheme.
> Even stronger, for 'afs', archived mail (from 1993) seems to confirm
> that 'afs' as a URI scheme was a very poor idea from its beginning
> (see "afs: considered harmful",
> <http://wwwwbs.cs.tu-berlin.de/html/urls/0148.html>  ).
>
> I suggest to consider deprecating these reserved URI scheme names
> as well, in a single draft together with the 'mailserver' scheme
> (to save work in the process).
>
> Thereby, the registrations would be moved to "Historic", which,
> according to the definition of that RFC status, does not immediately
> invalidate existing use cases (if any), but serves to clarify that
> new implementations should not try to support the subject.
> The scheme names would remain in the registry, thus keeping the names
> "reserved", i.e. out of availability for incompatible new use.
>
> So there are a few questions, for both cases:
>
> 1)  Is anybody aware of a specification for the above provisional
>      URI schemes ?
>
> 2)  If "yes" for 1), are there interoperable implementations?
>
> 3)  Are these URI schemes in actual use anywhere
>      (even if only intended for interpretation by brainware) ?
>
> 4)  Do the answers to the above questions support deprecation?
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>    Alfred.
>