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

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

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.

+1

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.

-1

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.)