Subject: Re: [Uri-review] AFS and 'afs' URI scheme

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 09:42:15 +0200

On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 09:36 +0300, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> Hi Jeffrey,
> 
> 2011/4/1, Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>:
> > On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 17:51 +0300, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> >> Hello all,
> >>
> >> I am writing to request some information regarding AFS and its current
> >> implementations.  I hope this is the right list to ask.
> >
> >
> > I suppose this is _a_ right place to ask, but a better place would be
> > [email-masked], which is the official home of
> > standardization work related to the AFS 3 protocol suite.
> >
> I've also requested this information there.
> >
> >> Currently the 'afs' URI scheme is registered by IANA as Provisional
> >> with reference to RFC 1738.  In the previous year there were some some
> >> discussions in the IETF regarding what should be done with it.
> >
> > I don't recall seeing any such discussion; where did this happen?
> >
> See archives of uri-review and [email-masked] lists.

I've read the discussions on those lists, and it seems to me that you
are beating a dead horse.  You have been trying for some time to move
this URI scheme to Historic for no apparent reason other than that its
entry in the provisional table offends your sense of aesthetics.  You
clearly have not been able to build a consensus in that time, and now
that you have finally bothered to ask the AFS community, you've been
told that, in fact, members of that community foresee defining the
syntax and semantics of this URI scheme at some point in the not too
distant future.

I really think you should let this drop.

-- Jeff