On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 18:14:25 +0300 Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
