31.03.2011 18:02, Andrew Deason 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.
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.
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
