W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > February 2011

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

From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 09:01:55 +0000
Message-ID: <4D525803.6070701@isode.com>
To: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
CC: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>, "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>, URI <uri@w3.org>, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Tony Hansen wrote:

> On 2/8/2011 10:46 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>
>> 08.02.2011 13:16, t.petch пишет:
>>
>>> The problem, at least for URI, is RFC4395, which gives the 
>>> procedures for new
>>> schemes
>>> and failed to consider old schemes.  RFC1738 did not make afs: 
>>> provisional or
>>> historic,
>>> it merely asked that the name be reserved.  IANA, arguably 
>>> incorrectly, places
>>> afs: under
>>> Provisional citing RFC1738 as its source.  But RFC1738 does not tell 
>>> them to do
>>> that!
>>
>> Maybe IANA was guided by the following fact. While RFC 4395 mentions 
>> the Provisional category, it does not give full definition of its 
>> purpose. This might cause misunderstanding of community and other 
>> interesting parties. IANA, due to lack of precise definition decided 
>> that RFC 1738 reserves these names via their provisional 
>> registration. Therefore they put it into corresponding category.
>>
>> But we should note that RFC 4395 says:
>>
>>>   To transition to the new registry, all URL name schemes in the
>>>     existing table should be entered as URI schemes, with 'permanent'
>>>     status.
>>
>> and says nothing about filling the Provisional registry. This should 
>> have caused this problem.
>>
>>> So, arguably, we could tell IANA to create a provisional registry as 
>>> RFC1738
>>> told them to
>>> and make it light weight, no need for IETF/IESG involvement unless 
>>> and until a
>>> move
>>> to Provisional or Permanent is envisaged, using Expert Review in 
>>> other cases of
>>> change.
>>> (I know of no other way of changing things in the IETF, which is 
>>> what I see as a
>>> constraint
>>> we have to accept).
>>
>> Such proposal is not very clear. What do you mean while saying 
>> 'registry per RFC1738'. Such registry is now replaced by what created 
>> by RFC4395. Moreover, since you propose to make it almost not 
>> controlled, possibly with the 'First Come First Served' policies will 
>> create great confusion. I do not think such idea is good.
>>
>>> Or we could write a just-once catch-all RFC that picks up all these 
>>> old ones,
>>> and defines
>>> a procedure for them (ie not a registration, but a procedure for 
>>> registration,
>>> such as
>>> reinforcing the need for a Reserved category and placing those in it 
>>> that should
>>> always have
>>> been in it).
>>
>> During the discussion of this topic in December there was such a 
>> proposal - to create the special Reserved category, but this did not 
>> gain the support. Such category's scope is very contiguous with that 
>> for Provisional one.
>
> I'm wondering if the authors of RFC 4395 (of which I'm one) should 
> send a note to IANA saying that "afs" and "tn3270" should have been 
> entered into the "Permanent" portion of the URI registry instead of 
> the "Provisional" portion. (And then be done with the topic.)

While I personally like to be done with this topic, I don't think just 
declaring "afs"/"tn3270" permanent is Ok without having proper syntax 
specificications.
Received on Wednesday, 9 February 2011 09:02:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 February 2011 09:02:55 GMT