W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > January 2011

Re: The state of 'afs' URi scheme

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 13:20:32 +0200
Message-ID: <4D469B00.3030404@gmail.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
CC: URI <uri@w3.org>, apps-discuss@ietf.org, "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>
31.01.2011 10:28, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2011, at 9:54 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>> 30.01.2011 20:20, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>> On Jan 30, 2011, at 4:03 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>>>> Hello all,
>>>> I'd like to resume the discussion on 'afs' URI scheme by citing RFC 4395:
>>>>> In some circumstances, it is appropriate to note a URI scheme that
>>>>>     was once in use or registered but for whatever reason is no longer in
>>>>>     common use or the use is not recommended.  In this case, it is
>>>>>     possible for an individual to request that the URI scheme be
>>>>>     registered (newly, or as an update to an existing registration) as
>>>>>     'historical'.  Any scheme that is no longer in common use MAY be
>>>>>     designated as historical; the registration should contain some
>>>>>     indication to where the scheme was previously defined or documented.
>>>> So there is a sense in moving this scheme to Historical category since it fully matches to these guidelines.  Therefore I do not consider such action as inappropriate for the 'afs' URI scheme.
>>> No, there is no reason to publish a new document about a
>>> scheme that was never used.  It is obsolete.
>> Roy,
>> I think that the document like that may be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-melnikov-mailserver-uri-to-historic/ is suitable for 'afs' URI scheme.  This is the same situation as with the 'mailserver' URI scheme.
> No, there is no reason to have that document either.  We don't need
> these useless exercises in bit pushing -- there are plenty of other
> drafts that need writing about actual protocols that were (and are)
> used on the Web as identifiers.  afs, nfs, tn3270, and mailserver are
> all examples of schemes that someone once thought might be a good idea,
> but were in fact never used on the Internet.  They are obsolete.

Since these schemes are in Provisional category, it means that they are 
'waiting for specification'.  If no-one specifies them, they should be 
moved to Historical.  That's clear, IMO.

> ....Roy
Received on Monday, 31 January 2011 11:20:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:54 UTC