Re: [Uri-review] ssh URI

David Booth <david@dbooth.org> Mon, 12 October 2009 18:56 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 E166E28C2A3 for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:56:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.289
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.289 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.310, 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 pWMMFT37ZMrq for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay03.pair.com (relay03.pair.com [209.68.5.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8A2AC28C29E for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 19790 invoked from network); 12 Oct 2009 18:55:59 -0000
Received: from 209.6.102.232 (HELO ?192.168.7.2?) (209.6.102.232) by relay03.pair.com with SMTP; 12 Oct 2009 18:55:59 -0000
X-pair-Authenticated: 209.197.102.232
From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4AD36C55.5060903@cisco.com>
References: <20091009160149.GB16908@braingia.org> <1255366894.5481.8445.camel@dbooth-laptop> <4AD36C55.5060903@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:55:59 -0400
Message-Id: <1255373759.5481.8826.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: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:56:05 -0000

On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 19:50 +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
> David,
> 
> I see some definite negatives to what you are suggesting:
> 
>      1. Requires some sort of consortia or legal framework.

It does require something, but it isn't much -- just the maintenance of
a URI domain.  You could even base your URI prefixes on purl.org PURLs,
if want to permit the resolution to move around over time:
http://purl.org/docs/index.html

>      1. Requires an additional resolution.  SSH is commonly used for
>         administration, and so I would be loathe to add that sort of
>         step.

No, it doesn't *require* an additional resolution.  The additional
resolution only comes into play as a fallback, if the client doesn't
know how to handle them as special SSH URIs.  

>      1. Requires ssh applications to understand HTTP URI schema.

No, they just need to know to recognize the special SSH HTTP URI prefix,
which might be something like "http://sshuri.org/".  This is no
different in principle from recognizing the special "ssh:" URI prefix if
a new scheme is used.

David Booth

> Or do I misread what you are suggesting?
> 
> Eliot
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/12/09 7:01 PM, David Booth wrote: 
> > I don't see a need to define a new URI scheme for this.  You can just
> > define an http URI prefix for this purpose, as described in
> > http://dbooth.org/2006/urn2http/
> > 
> > Furthermore, as Graham Klyne suggested during a similar discussion
> > earlier, "an HTTP URI can also retrieve a protocol [handler]
> > implementation"
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2009Sep/0029.html
> > This could dramatically improve the adoption rate of a new protocol.
> > 
> > David Booth
> > 
> > 
> > On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 11:01 -0500, Steve Suehring wrote:
> >   
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > Attached is a draft to be submitted to the IETF for URI scheme related 
> > > to secure shell (ssh).  The draft was originally included in the secsh 
> > > Working Group which has since concluded.  
> > > 
> > > http://tools.ietf.org/wg/secsh/draft-ietf-secsh-scp-sftp-ssh-uri/
> > > 
> > > I recently received a request to pick this draft back up and the 
> > > co-author and I will be submitting it to the IETF under the Application 
> > > Area.
> > > 
> > > Please provide feedback as appropriate.
> > > 
> > > Thank you for your time.
> > > 
> > > Steve Suehring
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Uri-review mailing list
> > > Uri-review@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
> > >     
> 
-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
Cleveland Clinic (contractor)

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