Re: [Uri-review] ssh URI

David Booth <david@dbooth.org> Tue, 13 October 2009 01:42 UTC

Return-Path: <david@dbooth.org>
X-Original-To: uri-review@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uri-review@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C1E23A6835 for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:42:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.444
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.444 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.155, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8Z+n5PinWQQh for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:42:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay03.pair.com (relay03.pair.com [209.68.5.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8733A3A67D8 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:42:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 90191 invoked from network); 13 Oct 2009 01:42:21 -0000
Received: from 209.6.102.232 (HELO ?192.168.7.2?) (209.6.102.232) by relay03.pair.com with SMTP; 13 Oct 2009 01:42:21 -0000
X-pair-Authenticated: 209.197.102.232
From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
To: bob@sporkmonger.com
In-Reply-To: <81c242240910121816y4becb1aevae5008b23537df2c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20091009160149.GB16908@braingia.org> <1255366894.5481.8445.camel@dbooth-laptop> <5EAB4D387A4A4B7C854FBD1869729771@POCZTOWIEC> <1255395156.5481.10083.camel@dbooth-laptop> <81c242240910121816y4becb1aevae5008b23537df2c@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:42:20 -0400
Message-Id: <1255398140.5481.10279.camel@dbooth-laptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: uri-review@ietf.org, uri@w3.org
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] ssh URI
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <uri-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review>
List-Post: <mailto:uri-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 01:42:25 -0000

On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 21:16 -0400, Bob Aman wrote:
> >  - Downloadable software that would cause the browser to recognize such
> > URIs in the future, and handle them appropriately (i.e., by opening a
> > secure shell, rather than by fetching a page from sshuri.org).
> > Furthermore, such software might even be programmed to recognize and
> > handle the "ssh:" URI scheme as well.
> 
> I have a problem with this in the general case because I don't think
> there's currently a way for such a URI to be registered to a specific
> application in any major browser.  

Take a look at greasemonkey:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/748 
Greasemonkey is based on recognizing URI patterns and performing special
functions when such patterns are recognized.

David Booth

> And for the specific case, I can
> think of at least one use case where you might want to link to an ssh
> URI in a browser:  HTTP-based admin interfaces to machines.
> 
> And I'll also repeat my previous comment for emphasis:  This concept
> is just confusing.
> 
> -1 to the concept of using anything under the http/https scheme to
> formally represent an ssh identifier.
> 
> -Bob Aman
> 
> 
-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
Cleveland Clinic (contractor)

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.