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

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

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1C373A697A for <>; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 10:17:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.034
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JXvsciYWpkvt for <>; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 10:17:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D82253A684E for <>; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 10:17:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB2D5768058; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 10:20:17 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; h=subject:mime-version :content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to; q=dns;; b=R3LQgLoaN1Mf5jBk MT0dbz2fkpFTxRy+KwW4LnMxzvFSKINxQG4cJmvPaT7/wWEWfI+Q8sVV8CWhqAMP qDcgq+V/mOlVV/I8SgQzP+bkSaH0c62h7ZEVeknB2DCPzYDfUJ1fzEdvHmhN/Xh7 9YFwiRLnaI+Xwp5K7oCx76+W5nQ=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed;; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to;; bh=JHPGBa7+9F5DMkfKHkQymkzRJF8=; b=ffDLvs1krWGGepDewOSlLF0cvZUF qmBDy5A6TxnjlTV97fk2Huf6T5MMZKlfIxcAb6qr4RWOsmqulBCBqC2a8vxguI9I MxHic+9ukU32cvRjXH/rSJ4Y/8Tq1w9OCVpnjiHlh7qr1QcERW/NOaRajXZmbc6J vIJ3qj05rU/40u0=
Received: from [] ( []) (Authenticated sender: by (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" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 10:20:20 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Cc: URI <>,
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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.