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

Paul Hoffman <> Mon, 31 January 2011 14:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17C433A6BFF for <>; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 06:56:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.755
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.755 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.291, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L2K81xkGLlur for <>; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 06:56:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (Hoffman.Proper.COM []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D14DA3A6B32 for <>; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 06:56:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from MacBook-08.local ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p0VExTCV065892 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <>; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 07:59:30 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 06:59:30 -0800
From: Paul Hoffman <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv: Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 14:56:18 -0000

On 1/31/11 12:28 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> No, there is no reason to have that document either.  We don't need
> these useless exercises in bit pushing -- there are plenty of other
> drafts that need writing about actual protocols that were (and are)
> used on the Web as identifiers.  afs, nfs, tn3270, and mailserver are
> all examples of schemes that someone once thought might be a good idea,
> but were in fact never used on the Internet.  They are obsolete.


On 1/31/11 3:20 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
 > Since these schemes are in Provisional category, it means that they are
 > 'waiting for specification'. If no-one specifies them, they should be
 > moved to Historical. That's clear, IMO.


Mykyta, you are approximately the only person who seems to have a 
problem understanding that standards organizations like the IETF 
sometimes don't follow through on what they thought were good ideas and 
sometimes don't document that. Your response is to generate many useless 
efforts to clean up the IETF specs instead of just doing what everyone 
else does, which is to ask a question, find the answer, and move on. It 
feels like you are wasting lots of people's time for the benefit of no 
one other than maybe yourself. (If there are others who feel that 
Mykyta's efforts are worth our time, by all means speak up and I'm happy 
to back down here.)