The state of 'afs' URi scheme

Dear all,

I have posted the following message on 7 January:
> Dear all,
> Let me briefly summarize all the comments on 'afs' URI scheme. Firstly,
> those referring to OpenAFS, forget that AFS is not only network service,
> but just file system. If we move this scheme to historic, there will be
> no harm to those who use it. Moreover, I should repeat here that moving
> the scheme to Historic does not mean restricting them to be used. If
> smbd still uses it, they will continue to do this. But it's impossible,
> as there is no clients for AFS as *network service*.
> I personally think we should move it to Historic to indicate it is not
> used among the Internet and is outdated. So what we decide on 'afs' URI
> scheme?
> All the best,
> Mykyta Yevstifeyev
and have not received any responses yet. Should I consider that as the 
'silent agreement'?


Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2011 15:29:38 UTC