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

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 14:03:12 +0200

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.

Any other thoughts as for this?

All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev

---

From: "Roy T. Fielding" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 10:20:20 -0800

On Jan 30, 2011, at 4:03 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:

>>    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
> 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  It is obsolete.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

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 07:54:44 +0200

> 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  It is obsolete.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.

Mykyta

---

From: "Roy T. Fielding" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 00:28:29 -0800

On Jan 30, 2011, at 9:54 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> 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.

....Roy

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 13:20:32 +0200

Roy,

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.

Mykyta

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 06:59:30 -0800

> but were in fact never used on the Internet.  They are obsolete.

+1

 > moved to Historical. That's clear, IMO.

-1

Mykyta, you are approximately the only person who seems to have a 
problem understanding that standards organizations like the IETF 
sometimes don't follow through on what they thought were good ideas and 
sometimes don't document that. Your response is to generate many useless 
efforts to clean up the IETF specs instead of just doing what everyone 
else does, which is to ask a question, find the answer, and move on. It 
feels like you are wasting lots of people's time for the benefit of no 
one other than maybe yourself. (If there are others who feel that 
Mykyta's efforts are worth our time, by all means speak up and I'm happy 
to back down here.)

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:11:20 +0100

On 31.01.2011 15:59, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> ...
> ...

+1

Speaking of which: there are URI schemes that *are* in use and should be 
registered (independently how "bad" we think they are); candidates are 
"itms" and "ical", which will probably require collaboration from Apple.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:31:19 +0300

Julian Reschke wrote:

> Speaking of which: there are URI schemes that *are* in use and should 
> be registered (independently how "bad" we think they are); candidates 
> are "itms" and "ical", which will probably require collaboration from 
> Apple.

As well as imaps:, pops: and possibly even smtp:

---

From: "Roy T. Fielding" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 11:32:15 -0800

On Jan 31, 2011, at 3:20 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> 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.

No, they should be removed from the registry and allowed to be
defined by some other spec in the future.  There is no need to
reserve the schemes of unimplemented identifier mechanisms.

....Roy