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

[Larry Masinter <[e-mail]>]

I think in general the overhead in maintaining current information about old registered values is too high, and that it *is* worth time thinking about how we could lower the overhead for registry maintenance.


There are a number of related issues raised about various registered values, including MIME type, charset, and URI schemes. 

Ideally a registry is a place where a new implementor can go to discover both the theory and current practice for use of registered values on the internet. I think the current processes cope OK with theory (although the overhead of updating the registry when there is a new spec is high, it might be acceptable) but not with practice (where implementation and deployment sometimes is in advance of, or divergent from, the formal specs).

The situation is more acute in areas where protocols and formats are undergoing rapid development.

So I agree that writing a document marking 'afs' as 'obsolete' is make-work and not-worth anyone's time, but how could we make it easier (light-weight annotation) without subjecting ourselves to DOS of unreliable annotation?

Larry