IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Uri-review] ssh URI

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Mon, 12 October 2009 20:29 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
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 72CD63A692F for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:29:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 d0w4h2GEwxPC for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:29:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F4863A6821 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:29:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=lear@cisco.com; l=536; q=dns/txt; s=amsiport01001; t=1255379378; x=1256588978; h=from:sender:reply-to:subject:date:message-id:to:cc: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-id: content-description:resent-date:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-to:resent-cc:resent-message-id:in-reply-to: references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:list-owner:list-archive; z=From:=20Eliot=20Lear=20<lear@cisco.com>|Subject:=20Re: =20[Uri-review]=20ssh=20URI|Date:=20Mon,=2012=20Oct=20200 9=2022:29:36=20+0200|Message-ID:=20<4AD391B0.3080901@cisc o.com>|To:=20David=20Booth=20<david@dbooth.org>|CC:=20Ste ve=20Suehring=20<suehring@braingia.org>,=20uri-review@iet f.org,=20uri@w3.org|MIME-Version:=201.0 |Content-Transfer-Encoding:=207bit|In-Reply-To:=20<125537 3759.5481.8826.camel@dbooth-laptop>|References:=20<200910 09160149.GB16908@braingia.org>=09=20<1255366894.5481.8445 .camel@dbooth-laptop>=20=20<4AD36C55.5060903@cisco.com> =20<1255373759.5481.8826.camel@dbooth-laptop>; bh=OMU/ob6z7fTVjhI0ITSY+uVSJDMHtrbiLfPKZH8Bs3I=; b=v1VpgfcCmh/nKp52G5thf13fhapup6M5J3lbVP7DyKp6bzBImIautnpD R5cafVThZWR3GAzCarrdu4YYZnCfgQncVDdjU3/LYNXB8cPYqE0/+kPpn 6DoD3GABf0+qU+eDwlkCDhqIFUeerl3VY4/636eEEC3mxXoc1304GRvKW U=;
Authentication-Results: ams-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Al0AAKgu00qQ/uCWe2dsb2JhbACBUpk7AQEWJAakFZcRhC0E
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,547,1249257600"; d="scan'208";a="51581808"
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.150]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Oct 2009 20:29:36 +0000
Received: from elear-mac.local (dhcp-10-61-100-124.cisco.com [10.61.100.124]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n9CKTaP3003429; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:29:36 GMT
Message-ID: <4AD391B0.3080901@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:29:36 +0200
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4pre) Gecko/20091003 Shredder/3.0pre
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
References: <20091009160149.GB16908@braingia.org> <1255366894.5481.8445.camel@dbooth-laptop> <4AD36C55.5060903@cisco.com> <1255373759.5481.8826.camel@dbooth-laptop>
In-Reply-To: <1255373759.5481.8826.camel@dbooth-laptop>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
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 20:29:38 -0000

On 10/12/09 8:55 PM, David Booth wrote:
>
>>       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.
>    

 From a security standpoint, why is reliance on 3rd party by 
non-participants better than a hard error?

Eliot

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email