|
Hello all, The first mention of 'ftp' URI scheme in the IETF document is probably RFC 1738 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1738), if I'm right. As far as you can see, this RFC is formally obsoleted by RFC 4248 and RFC 4266, but in fact RFC 2396 et seq., meaning RFC 3986 (formally they updated RFC 1738), replaced it. Among other, RFC 1738 document specified several URI schemes, such as widely-used 'http', 'mailto' etc. This table summarizes the state of schemes specified by RFC 1738. ("Specification" is the most current RFC defining some scheme).
You may see, there are two schemes in this list specified by formally obsoleted RFC 1738 (even though it is actually PS). They're probably the only two schemes (not considering 'afs', but it's in provisional regsitry) that are listed at IANA registry, in the Permanent category, with a reference to obsoleted RFC (maybe, 'fax' can be considered to be so as well; but is it de facto deprecated and hsitorical). 'ftp' and 'file' schemes are quite widely-used; obsolete RFC 1738 is an actual specification for them. There has been an effort to specify this schemes in separate docs. (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-ftp-uri/, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-file-uri/), but they resulted in nothing (unlike eg. RFC 4248, as a part of the same effort, if I'm right). Considering this, should an attempt to provide these schemes an up-to-date specification be undertaken? Mykyta Yevstifeyev |