Re: Status of RFC 1738 -- 'ftp' URI scheme

29.12.2010 19:10, Ira McDonald wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 8:18 AM, John Cowan < 
> <>> wrote:
>     Charles Lindsey scripsit:
>     > Perhaps this is a good time to point out (which I omitted to do
>     earlier)
>     > that the news and nntp schemes have now een published as RFC
>     5538, so
>     > when this ftp scheme is finished perhaps we can finally put RFC
>     1738 to
>     > bed.
>     Has the file scheme become a separate RFC at last?
>     --
> Unfortunately no - IANA URI Schemes registry says RFC 1738 and this I-D
> expired 5 years ago <draft-hoffman-file-uri-03.txt>.
> Warts and all, an RFC for file URI is sorely needed IMHO.
> Cheers,
> - Ira
Moreover, I've found the 'afs' URI scheme in RFC 1738 (and in 
Provisional registry), that (1) needs to be defined or (2) moved to 
Historic registry. What RFC says is:

>     The following scheme have been proposed at various times, but this
>     document does not define their syntax or use at this time. It is
>     suggested that IANA reserve their scheme names for future definition:
>     afs              Andrew File System global file names.
>     mid              Message identifiers for electronic mail.
>     cid              Content identifiers for MIME body parts.
>     nfs              Network File System (NFS) file names.
>     tn3270           Interactive 3270 emulation sessions.
>     mailserver       Access to data available from mail servers.
>     z39.50           Access to ANSI Z39.50 services.
Currently, all of them (except afs, mailserver and tn3270) have been 
specified or moved to Historic. There is a draft moving 'mailserver' to 
Historic too 
and draft specifying tn3270 scheme 
( And 
only afs remains indefinite. So I think now it's time to discuss if it 
should be moved to Historic either.

Maybe (2) seems more acceptable for me. Has anyone seen the Andrew File 
System wide-spread among the Internet? As I know, it was an experimental 
effort of Carnegie Mellon University and I really do not neither know 
any public-available resources hat can be accessed by such a scheme nor 
clients for it.

You may find some discussions on this topic on uri-review mailing list 
in November, as I remeber (while discussion about 

I would also like to know what is with 'modem' scheme. It is in 
permanent registry, but has a note of being Historic. What that smth 
wrong with defining docs and IANA did not have clear definitions of its 
actions as for this scheme or smth other?

As for 'file' scheme, I just wonder why this document (I mean Paul's 
draft) has not become the RFC like e. g. his docs as for telnet and 
prospero schemes. Nevertheless, IMO we need to align it with the most 
current URI defining practices and make it RFC too.

Finally, as for 'ftp' one, I am strongly concerned there must be clear 
definition of this wide-spread scheme - it is really needed.

So, taking everything into account, only if we resolve *all* these 
problems, we can say that RFC 1738 is really obsolete, IMO.

Happy New Year to everybody,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev

Received on Saturday, 1 January 2011 17:55:31 UTC