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

"Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> Sun, 30 January 2011 18:17 UTC

Return-Path: <fielding@gbiv.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 F1C373A697A for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 10:17:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.034
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.034 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.435, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 JXvsciYWpkvt for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 10:17:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a70.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcahe.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.74]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D82253A684E for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 10:17:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a70.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a70.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB2D5768058; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 10:20:17 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gbiv.com; h=subject:mime-version :content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to; q=dns; s=gbiv.com; b=R3LQgLoaN1Mf5jBk MT0dbz2fkpFTxRy+KwW4LnMxzvFSKINxQG4cJmvPaT7/wWEWfI+Q8sVV8CWhqAMP qDcgq+V/mOlVV/I8SgQzP+bkSaH0c62h7ZEVeknB2DCPzYDfUJ1fzEdvHmhN/Xh7 9YFwiRLnaI+Xwp5K7oCx76+W5nQ=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=gbiv.com; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=gbiv.com; bh=JHPGBa7+9F5DMkfKHkQymkzRJF8=; b=ffDLvs1krWGGepDewOSlLF0cvZUF qmBDy5A6TxnjlTV97fk2Huf6T5MMZKlfIxcAb6qr4RWOsmqulBCBqC2a8vxguI9I MxHic+9ukU32cvRjXH/rSJ4Y/8Tq1w9OCVpnjiHlh7qr1QcERW/NOaRajXZmbc6J vIJ3qj05rU/40u0=
Received: from [192.168.1.84] (99-21-208-82.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net [99.21.208.82]) (Authenticated sender: fielding@gbiv.com) by homiemail-a70.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 9133C768057; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 10:20:17 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D455380.6040103@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 10:20:20 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3792F8F3-D01B-4B05-9E73-59228F09FE5C@gbiv.com>
References: %3C4D26B005.2060909@gmail.com%3E <4D2C7755.5080908@gmail.com> <81F42F63D5BB344ABF294F8E80990C7902782BBA@MTV-EXCHANGE.microfocus.com> <4D455380.6040103@gmail.com>
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Cc: 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: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 18:17:07 -0000

On Jan 30, 2011, at 4:03 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:

> Hello all,
> 
> I'd like to resume the discussion on 'afs' URI scheme by citing RFC 4395:
>  
>> In some circumstances, it is appropriate to note a URI scheme that
>>    was once in use or registered but for whatever reason is no longer in
>>    common use or the use is not recommended.  In this case, it is
>>    possible for an individual to request that the URI scheme be
>>    registered (newly, or as an update to an existing registration) as
>>    'historical'.  Any scheme that is no longer in common use MAY be
>>    designated as historical; the registration should contain some
>>    indication to where the scheme was previously defined or documented.
> 
> So there is a sense in moving this scheme to Historical category since it fully matches to these guidelines.  Therefore I do not consider such action as inappropriate for the 'afs' URI scheme.

No, there is no reason to publish a new document about a
scheme that was never used.  It is obsolete.

....Roy