Hi, My impression is the originating motivation for making changes to the AFS uri scheme (among others) is coming from Mr. Yevstifeyev -to- a working group. There were similar proposals made to the TSVWG recently.
Matt ----- "Andrew Deason" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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? > -- > Andrew Deason > [email protected] -- Matt Benjamin The Linux Box 206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 http://linuxbox.com tel. 734-761-4689 fax. 734-769-8938 cel. 734-216-5309 _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
