Re: [Uri-review] ssh URI

Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> Mon, 12 October 2009 17:07 UTC

Return-Path: <danbri@danbri.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 BB9AB28C27A for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:07:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
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 3gw9nir5a8wk for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:07:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ew0-f208.google.com (mail-ew0-f208.google.com [209.85.219.208]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A96ED28C25C for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ewy4 with SMTP id 4so2626271ewy.37 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:07:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.88.143 with SMTP id a15mr1941960wef.206.1255367251755; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:07:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1255366894.5481.8445.camel@dbooth-laptop>
References: <20091009160149.GB16908@braingia.org> <1255366894.5481.8445.camel@dbooth-laptop>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:07:31 +0200
Message-ID: <eb19f3360910121007i7f533958ycae1ffbfbeac4307@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:08:37 -0700
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 17:07:36 -0000

On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 7:01 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> 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.

You'd really be advocating retrieval of SSH protocol handlers over
untrusted HTTP connections? That's brave or something!

Dan