On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Andrew Deason <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 17:45:39 +0300 > Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I am writing to request some information regarding AFS and its current >> implementations. I hope this is the right list to ask. > > It is, unless you want to go ask each implementation directly. > >> 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. >> However there was no consensus on any actions; two were proposed - >> move the scheme to Historical category or remain it as is. I'd like >> to hear the opinion of AFS experts. > > 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.
Indeed, I have uses in mind. -- Derrick _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
