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

Hello all,

Let me cite the URI schemes registry 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:

---Citation 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 September 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 scheme to the registry?

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 14:02:50 UTC