Re: [Uri-review] ssh URI

[Dan Brickley <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 9:19 PM, Ted Hardie <[e-mail]> wrote:
> While I applaud the basic sentiment of not having this discussion
> every time a new URI scheme comes up, I think you'd have to persuade
> the IETF rather than the TAG.

You're right, of course. I should have put it differently. I meant to
express gently that if anyone around here is going to be persuaded of
this approach, it's most likely to be the TAG. Or at least the TAG
might be the right forum for knocking the ideas into more widely
appealing shape. If they're persuaded, then the approach would be
worth requesting serious review from other parties, chief amongst
those being IETF.

>                                                    The IETF is responsible for URI
> registration, and the documents are pretty clear on that point.  The
> IESG and IAB take the TAG's input very seriously, of course, but the
> question of URI registration is one where there has been divergence
> for some time.  As the discussion above notes, having HTTP always in
> the URI loop may make sense for the web; it doesn't work for other
> deployments and other protocols.

Yes. Even in W3C circles there are a fair number of different views
bouncing around.

I spent a while re-reading the early years of www-talk today, and it's
a bit disheartening how much the same old questions are still bouncing
around 18 years later. And I'm sure not so fun for people just trying
to register a scheme who get dragged into this decades-long
permadiscussion.

> I personally agree with those saying ssh ought to be an independent
> scheme.  It has a widely installed user base and I have seen
> individuals use ssh:hostname as a pseudo-URI for some time.  Pushing
> out a real spec for the URI scheme would avoid interoperability
> problems there, and that in itself is goodness.

Completely agree...

cheers,

Dan