Re: [Uri-review] ssh URI

Steve Suehring <suehring@braingia.org> Mon, 12 October 2009 17:53 UTC

Return-Path: <suehring@braingia.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 71D463A6952 for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:53:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.265
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
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 rAwA9IwohwBA for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:53:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dfw0.icgmedia.com (dfw0.icgmedia.com [69.93.3.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F75D3A68EC for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:53:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dfw0.icgmedia.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFAAA17040; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:53:39 -0500 (CDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at icgmedia.com
Received: from dfw0.icgmedia.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (dfw0.icgmedia.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0aDuUQakL8GI; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:53:35 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from titania.braingia.org (66-190-11-170.dhcp.stpt.wi.charter.com [66.190.11.170]) by dfw0.icgmedia.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0323417229; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:53:34 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by titania.braingia.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6CBABA2007; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:53:31 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:53:31 -0500
From: Steve Suehring <suehring@braingia.org>
To: uri-review@ietf.org, uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <20091012175331.GA3277@braingia.org>
References: <20091009160149.GB16908@braingia.org> <1255366894.5481.8445.camel@dbooth-laptop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1255366894.5481.8445.camel@dbooth-laptop>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
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 17:53:37 -0000

I don't think that the http URI prefix is a good solution for the ssh 
protocol.  There is too much room for userland confusion which is 
undesirable due to the nature of ssh traffic.

Steve


On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 01:01:34PM -0400, 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
>