[Uri-review] 'ftp' and 'file' URI schemes still needs specifying

Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com> Sun, 15 May 2011 05:13 UTC

Return-Path: <evnikita2@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73F39E069C for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 May 2011 22:13:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.407
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.407 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.191, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W5Wn46gcYI+7 for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 May 2011 22:13:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2354BE067F for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 May 2011 22:13:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bwz13 with SMTP id 13so3588104bwz.31 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 May 2011 22:13:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:content-type; bh=YDorVlnRfos/8s9SMbTyI3AnQO34G3GkeHEGnoSPiNw=; b=NVuVrDuKLmKZAqNK1yOkcTut9OBX2DvNMjGww6awIHQId05mNS1r+N7nO8XMXenps+ dkaUfZwO9BwU5/Z+6B3EWcL2GR5CpUGLuV6VLjuPXUquCySEre3o4WBEr2nMYt0t4PXn 3yteP88a2pHP72TxuT+0uXifTiTrybsHy6nbw=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type; b=fhyt65J6kD3JqVKF7kLlT0YnWn0C/RCrreCZID1Ps3I9k5sE98JCQridnsxXh7hpHW 8KcI/2unv80K0gKwTedR+Yp7QmlHyP1lWLnkFsXIKvsMgbGHUWXlepFqroRzOCbvbUZf 0URm5y4X8NciedLWL/B2c5glaT60fiQyV7z+k=
Received: by with SMTP id q4mr2912711bkk.107.1305436402511; Sat, 14 May 2011 22:13:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d10sm1878834bkw.11.2011. (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 14 May 2011 22:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4DCF611D.9080306@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 08:14:05 +0300
From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ru; rv: Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000306030700070400040702"
Subject: [Uri-review] 'ftp' and 'file' URI schemes still needs specifying
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <uri-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review>
List-Post: <mailto:uri-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 05:13:25 -0000

Hello all,

The first mention of 'ftp' URI scheme in the IETF document is probably 
RFC 1738 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1738), if I'm right.  As far as 
you can see, this RFC is formally obsoleted by RFC 4248 and RFC 4266, 
but in fact RFC 2396 et seq., meaning RFC 3986 (formally they updated 
RFC 1738), replaced it.  Among other, RFC 1738 document specified 
several URI schemes, such as widely-used 'http', 'mailto' etc.  This 
table summarizes the state of schemes specified by RFC 1738.  
("Specification" is the most current RFC defining some scheme).

/Scheme name
/ 	/Protocol
/ 	/Specification
	HTTP (RFC2616)
	RFC 2616
	Gopher (RFC1436)
	RFC 4266
	RFC 6068
	NNTP (RFC 3977)
	RFC 5538
	NNTP (RFC 3977)
	RFC 5538
	Telnet (RFC 854)
	RFC 4248
	WAIS (RFC 1625)
	RFC 4156
	*RFC 1738*
	Propsero (non-IETF)
	RFC 4157
	FTP (RFC 959)
	*RFC 1738

You may see, there are two schemes in this list specified by formally 
obsoleted RFC 1738 (even though it is actually PS).  They're probably 
the only two schemes (not considering 'afs', but it's in provisional 
regsitry) that are listed at IANA registry, in the Permanent category, 
with a reference to obsoleted RFC (maybe, 'fax' can be considered to be 
so as well; but is it de facto deprecated and hsitorical).  'ftp' and 
'file' schemes are quite widely-used; obsolete RFC 1738 is an actual 
specification for them.

There has been an effort to specify this schemes in separate docs. 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-file-uri/), but they 
resulted in nothing (unlike eg. RFC 4248, as a part of the same effort, 
if I'm right).  Considering this, should an attempt to provide these 
schemes an up-to-date specification be undertaken?

Mykyta Yevstifeyev