Mykyta Yevstifeyev | 31 Mar 2011 16:51
Picon

AFS and 'afs' URI scheme

Hello all,

I am writing to request some information regarding AFS and its current implementations.  I hope this is the right list to ask.

So my question is whether the latest versions of current AFS implementation still use 'afs' URI scheme.  The 'afs' URI scheme can be found mentioned as reserved for further standardization in RFC 1738 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1738) dated December 1994, but there is no any definition of the scheme's syntax/semantics. 

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.

Thank you in advance,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
_______________________________________________
Arla-drinkers mailing list
Arla-drinkers <at> stacken.kth.se
https://lists.stacken.kth.se/mailman/listinfo/arla-drinkers
Jeffrey Hutzelman | 1 Apr 2011 00:56
Picon
Favicon

Re: AFS and 'afs' URI scheme

On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 17:51 +0300, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> I am writing to request some information regarding AFS and its current
> implementations.  I hope this is the right list to ask.

I suppose this is _a_ right place to ask, but a better place would be
afs3-standardization <at> openafs.org, which is the official home of
standardization work related to the AFS 3 protocol suite.

> 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. 

I don't recall seeing any such discussion; where did this happen?

-- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) <jhutz+ <at> cmu.edu>
   Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA

Gmane