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

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

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 12:03:27 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTik=akHLUs2Q5SjSC0VmJ5nU7_s24qpgApzr7bxW@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Cc: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>, "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>, URI <uri@w3.org>, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Hello all,

Let me cite the URI schmes regsitry from 28 November 2005

--- Citations starts----

Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) SCHEMES

(last updated 28 November 2005)

This is the Official IANA Registry of URI Schemes

In the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) definition [RFC3986,RFC1738]
there is a field, called "scheme", to identify the type of resource
and access method.

[....]

Reserved URI Scheme Names:

   afs              Andrew File System global file names
   tn3270           Interactive 3270 emulation sessions
   mailserver       Access to data available from mail servers

---Citations ends---

And then from February 2007, provisional category:

---Ctation starts---

Index of /assignments/uri-schemes/prov
 Name                    Last modified       Size  Description
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Parent Directory        23-Feb-2007 11:55      -
 iax2                    23-Feb-2007 11:54     3k


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apache/1.3.27 Server at www.iana.org Port 80

---Citation ends----

The same is for Sepember 2007 and the latest archival entry from 23
October 2007 here:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes

The question is - who added the sheme to the regsitry?

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

2011/2/9, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>:
> 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 10:04:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 February 2011 10:04:02 GMT