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

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 18:06:29 +0200

01.02.2011 17:53, John Levine wrote:
>> This is like that.  Let's not waste everyone's time.
>> In fact, let's not waste any more time discussing it.
> I certainly see rough consensus (everyone except one) that there is
> nothing to do here.  So I encourage people to resist the urge to
> debate it further.
Dear all,

If there is a rough consensus to remain this scheme Provisional, this 
means that there should be proper specification.  Even RFC 1738 is not 
appropriate here, as it is obsoleted.  Does anyone one want to specify 
this?  The answer is obviously 'no'.  The same answer is to the question 
'Move to Historic?'.  And for 'Do anything else?'

This seems to be a deadlock.  Therefore for I'll contact apps Area 
directors for their final decision.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

> R's,
> John
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 17:44:56 +0200

* /To/: Ben Niven-Jenkins <ben at niven-jenkins.co.uk
      <mailto:[email-masked]>>, Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2 at
      gmail.com <mailto:[email-masked]>>, apps-discuss
      <[email-masked]>
    * /Subject/: Re: [apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme
    * /From/: Larry Masinter <masinter at adobe.com
      <mailto:[email-masked]>>
    * /Date/: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 20:46:10 -0800

----Citation starts------

I think in general the overhead in maintaining current information about 
old registered values is too high, and that it *is* worth time thinking 
about how we could lower the overhead for registry maintenance.

There are a number of related issues raised about various registered 
values, including MIME type, charset, and URI schemes.

Ideally a registry is a place where a new implementor can go to discover 
both the theory and current practice for use of registered values on the 
internet. I think the current processes cope OK with theory (although 
the overhead of updating the registry when there is a new spec is high, 
it might be acceptable) but not with practice (where implementation and 
deployment sometimes is in advance of, or divergent from, the formal specs).

The situation is more acute in areas where protocols and formats are 
undergoing rapid development.

So I agree that writing a document marking 'afs' as 'obsolete' is 
make-work and not-worth anyone's time, but how could we make it easier 
(light-weight annotation) without subjecting ourselves to DOS of 
unreliable annotation?

Larry

----Citation ends------

I'm forwarding this message from apps-discuss list here since the 
discussion is also appropriate here.

Mykyta