Re: [Uri-review] Request for sftp URI scheme

Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org> Mon, 01 October 2018 14:11 UTC

Return-Path: <gk@ninebynine.org>
X-Original-To: uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12158130DFA for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Oct 2018 07:11:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kVB0XT7ZwR1n for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Oct 2018 07:11:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay16.mail.ox.ac.uk (relay16.mail.ox.ac.uk [163.1.2.166]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD3AB130DDC for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Oct 2018 07:11:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp4.mail.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.1.207]) by relay16.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <gk@ninebynine.org>) id 1g6yv8-00057k-sB; Mon, 01 Oct 2018 15:11:35 +0100
Received: from gklyne38.plus.com ([81.174.129.24] helo=sasharissa.local) by smtp4.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <gk@ninebynine.org>) id 1g6yv6-0001Q9-EC; Mon, 01 Oct 2018 15:11:32 +0100
Message-ID: <5BB22B13.9020505@ninebynine.org>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2018 15:11:31 +0100
From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rick van Rein <rick@openfortress.nl>, Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>
CC: "uri-review@ietf.org >> uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>
References: <5BAB3AE1.2090603@openfortress.nl> <CAN40gSs6MFVTEpK+J2b9_Vhf9x2yQwrL-e==2tMPhqQtrAM+iw@mail.gmail.com> <5BAB92B3.4030609@openfortress.nl>
In-Reply-To: <5BAB92B3.4030609@openfortress.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Oxford-Username: zool0635
X-Oxmail-Spam-Status: score=0.0 tests=none
X-Oxmail-Spam-Level: /
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-review/VLPX5YP1GJNBGMNfU6jd56GtL5Y>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Request for sftp URI scheme
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <uri-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 01 Oct 2018 14:11:40 -0000

Hi,

I think provisional registration is desirable, and does not of itself consist of 
a recommendation (or a claim to be a standard).

An intent of provisional registration is to allow developers and others to find 
information about proposed (and in-use) schemes.  Reflecting this, the current 
registration procedure for *provisional* URI schemes does not require any formal 
approval.

If there are multiple competing versions of sftp: in use then it would be 
appropriate to add a note to point this out, and also any additional references 
that are available.

(Rick: if you do submit this to IANA, could you add a link to the archive of 
this discussion in the covering email? Thanks!)

#g
--


On 26/09/2018 15:07, Rick van Rein wrote:
> Hello Ira,
>
>> Two separate efforts to standardize SFTP (the protocol) in IETF failed a
>> long time ago.
>
> I was afraid it had been tried, but didn't know how to find out, other
> than try this.
>
>> Interoperability between different versions is not
>> available.
>
> IOW, standardisation is going to set some people on fire because they
> would be rendered the bad guys.  That's indeed a likely recipe for
> failure in the IETF, where all voices are heard, I fear.
>
>> Do you intend to start an IETF standards-track effort to standardize
>> SFTP?  Or at least to point to a stable, current spec of SFTP protocol?
>
> That is not my current intention.
>
>> Otherwise, I believe that even a provisional registration is of dubious
>> value.
>
> Thanks for explaining that.  I shall keep it in the back of my head in
> case we ever want to go that way.  I suppose for our own application
> I'll have to act in a non-standard manner then.
>
> -Rick
>
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list
> Uri-review@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>