01.04.2011 10:42, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 09:42 +0300, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
The current WG does not work on particular schemes definitions. It is
chartered to update procedures for their regsitrations.
To be clear -- there is no "involved WG". In the few cases where
existing URI schemes have been reclassified of late, the documents in
question have been individual submissions to the IETF, and have been
discussed on the uri-review list, which is a non-WG list chartered to
review new URI scheme proposals, and on [email protected].
In order to give the scheme even Provisional regsitration, we should
decide on uniformed syntax, first of all.
Actually, no. The scheme is in the Provisional table now. In order to
change this, you need to develop a consensus, which you have clearly
failed to do, both here and on uri-review.
So, as I understand, there is a consensus currently to leave this "as
is" and wait for future definition of 'afs' scheme.
Mykyta
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
