Re: [Uri-review] The state of 'afs' URi scheme

["Roy T. Fielding" <[e-mail]>]

On Jan 30, 2011, at 9:54 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> 30.01.2011 20:20, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> 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  It is obsolete.
> Roy,
> 
> I think that the document like that may be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-melnikov-mailserver-uri-to-historic/ is suitable for 'afs' URI scheme.  This is the same situation as with the 'mailserver' URI scheme.

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.

....Roy