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

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com> · Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 18:06:29 +0200

01.02.2011 17:53, John Levine wrote:
>> This is like that.  Let's not waste everyone's time.
>> In fact, let's not waste any more time discussing it.
> I certainly see rough consensus (everyone except one) that there is
> nothing to do here.  So I encourage people to resist the urge to
> debate it further.
Dear all,

If there is a rough consensus to remain this scheme Provisional, this 
means that there should be proper specification.  Even RFC 1738 is not 
appropriate here, as it is obsoleted.  Does anyone one want to specify 
this?  The answer is obviously 'no'.  The same answer is to the question 
'Move to Historic?'.  And for 'Do anything else?'

This seems to be a deadlock.  Therefore for I'll contact apps Area 
directors for their final decision.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

> R's,
> John
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>