[apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[apps-discuss] The state of 'afs' URi scheme

t.petch-4
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mykyta Yevstifeyev" <[hidden email]>
> To: "Ben Niven-Jenkins" <[hidden email]>
> Cc: <[hidden email]>; "URI" <[hidden email]>; <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 4:27 PM
>
> > 01.02.2011 17:23, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote:
> > > Mykyta,
> > >
> > > On 1 Feb 2011, at 15:02, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> > >> Ben,
> > >>
> > >> Such action might be performed by simple request of IESG.  RFC 4395 says:
> > >>
> > >> Transition from 'provisional' to 'historical' may be
> > >>    requested by anyone authorized to update the provisional
> > >>    registration.
> > >>
>  >> Since that is not clear who is authorized to change it, IESG should be
> considered for such action (there is not this in the document, this is my
> opinion).  So IMO IESG should issue the community call on reclassification and
> then request this action from IANA.
> > >>
> > >> And in this way there won't be what you say - unnecessary docs.
> > > So you've saved an I-D being written but still used IESG time which could
be
> much better spent on other things that actually provide value to the
community.
>
> > I really do not consider the action I propose as that 'requires great
> > amount of time'.  Moreover, there is a strong consensus it is not used
> > and will not be used so no problems will appear, IMO.
>
 I have said it before, and I will go on saying it.

 The time of an AD is precious, we depend on them for the IETF to happen,
 so creating unnecessary work for them, by requests, by unproductive I-Ds
 or any means is detrimental to the whole of the IETF.

 Doing that to the IESG simply magnifies the effect by an order of magnitude.

 Tom Petch

> > > Also, you failed to answer the question I asked though, namely:
> > >>> What is the real value and benefit in doing all the work to move them to
> historic? No one uses them so no one benefits from tweaking the category they
> are placed in IMO.
> > > Unless there is a good answer to that question to justify changing their
> classification, I don't see any point in spending time discussing how one
might
> go about reclassifying them.
> > You should better ask the authors of RFC 4395 this, but not me.  If this
> > wasn't needed, it wouldn't appear here.
> >
> > Mykyta Yevstifeyev
> > > Ben
>