Re: The state of 'afs' URi scheme

11.01.2011 18:11, Alastair Angwin1 wrote:
> Mykyta
> I have watched this thread and alerted some folks who would be closer to it
> than I am
> As someone who has been involved in standards and had to deal with legacy
> may I point out that the classification of "historic" is emotive,
> Regardless of whether or not it affects any current implementations or
> users it sends a less than desirable message. I cannot think of many of us
> other than a palaeontologist who would like ourselves or our work to be
> referred to as dinosaurs or ancient.
> May I suggest as a way forward that the team wanting to address these
> legacy, a much more preferred term, schemes actually contacts the OpenAFS
> folks or IBM who still support customers using AFS to get their input
> I don't think silence should always be taken as agreement ... perhaps those
> who would have an opinion are simply not sufficiently aware of current
> discussions

During the discussion that occurred here, it was mentioned that there is 
no any appropriate implementation that use the 'afs' URI scheme to 
access the AFS resources.  Maybe there are some server implementations, 
but having no interest to this scheme as a tool to access the resources 
provided by these servers makes the scheme just useless.  If there is no 
benefit from such a scheme.  Those who use AFS may use it, we don't 
restrict them.  We just want to indicate that the 'afs' scheme is out of 
use, deprecated.  And in this case, do you know any implementations to 
support this scheme?

Mykyta Yevstifeyev
> Regards
> Alastair Angwin
> From:       Mykyta Yevstifeyev<>
> To:
> Date:       11/01/2011 15:31
> Subject:    The state of 'afs' URi scheme
> Sent by:
> 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'?
> Mykyta

Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2011 16:24:51 UTC