[AFS3-std] Re: AFS and 'afs' URI scheme

[Andrew Deason]

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 18:14:25 +0300
Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Does moving the scheme to Historical impact our ability to use it or
> > provide standardization on it in the future? As far as I know, nothing
> > uses it right now, but (just speaking for myself) I am significantly
> > less sure that it will continue to be unused in the future.
>
> Moving the scheme to Historical category does not restrict its usage,
> but discourages it.  See http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395#section-4
> 
> This document also says nothing about specifying schemes currently
> listed as Historical.  But there is an effort to revise RFC 4395
> currently occurring in the IETF.  The Working Group doing this work on
> the meeting right yesterday agreed that such action will be impossible
> or strongly discouraged.

Okay, then I would vote for keeping the afs URI scheme in its current
status of provisional, and reserved for future standardization. I know
it's been that way for quite some time, but if it makes it more
palatable, we could probably come up with a more proper provisional URI
submission without too much difficulty, given some time. Would the
involved WG find it helpful if we did that?

Adhering to the requirements of a permanent URI specification I expect
will take much longer. I'm not entirely clear on how much the URI
specification would need to involve the AFS protocol itself; there exist
no published standards for a lot of the AFS protocol ("almost all of it"
possibly depending on who you ask), so I'm not sure to what degree that
makes this more difficult.

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net