Re: [Uri-review] ssh URI

[Křištof Želechovski <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the clarification.  In this case, the specification should say
that the path component MUST be empty.  It is confusing to have a feature
that serves no purpose.
Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: 'Steve Suehring' [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 10:43 PM
To: K?i?tof ?elechovski
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] ssh URI

Hello,

Thank you for the feedback.  Could you help me with #2 on your list?  We 
have this in the draft now:

"The SSH URI does not define a usage for a non-empty path element.  If a 
non-empty path element is included in an SSH URI then it SHOULD be 
ignored."

Should that specific sentence be amended or is there some additional 
clarification necessary?

Steve

On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 07:51:50PM +0200, K?i?tof ?elechovski wrote:
>   1. [4.4] Outdated internal references: The parameters are not described
in
> section 4.1.
>   2. [4.4] The syntax does not forbid having a nonempty path component but
a
> semantic for one is not described.
>   3. [5.1] I would rather have 
>
ssh://[e-mail]?fingerprint=ssh-dss-c1-b1-30-29-d7-b8-de-6c-97-7
> 7-10-d7-46-41-63-87
> for obvious reasons.
> Please consider
> Chris