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

Rick van Rein <rick@openfortress.nl> Wed, 26 September 2018 14:08 UTC

Return-Path: <rick@openfortress.nl>
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 720AD130E1E for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 07:08:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=openfortress.nl
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 u3XTuM8AACNG for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 07:08:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lb1-smtp-cloud9.xs4all.net (lb1-smtp-cloud9.xs4all.net [194.109.24.22]) (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 126B3130E0C for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 07:08:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from popmini.vanrein.org ([IPv6:2001:980:93a5:1::7]) by smtp-cloud9.xs4all.net with ESMTP id 5ATvg0bPMS9Y35ATwguo3a; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 16:08:01 +0200
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=openfortress.nl; i=rick@openfortress.nl; q=dns/txt; s=fame; t=1537970879; h=message-id : date : from : mime-version : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : date : from : subject; bh=0Dn4xWTFep/vK6gJygRY7fW5zMOccWgs3H7G6magNfg=; b=qJc8LtDJfh6f66GN+eBWk9HGJXizQeSOO2UF1UGXEsHXOk8h0LBhDcKW k+ognAMiucO03kfEVGGbcCeotLezG31AuU1ZJZ3VIwORMrAowJCdDiz8H2 K1CZDtcquNnDDM6UxF1MxcvaqmhqigieoP09N8GQFYMHqbGrvvWeejbZs=
Received: by fame.vanrein.org (Postfix, from userid 1006) id 515251DD32; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 14:07:58 +0000 (UTC)
X-Original-To: uri-review@ietf.org
Received: from airhead.local (phantom.vanrein.org [83.161.146.46]) by fame.vanrein.org (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 644E01DD2E; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 14:07:49 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <5BAB92B3.4030609@openfortress.nl>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 16:07:47 +0200
From: Rick van Rein <rick@openfortress.nl>
User-Agent: Postbox 3.0.11 (Macintosh/20140602)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: 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>
In-Reply-To: <CAN40gSs6MFVTEpK+J2b9_Vhf9x2yQwrL-e==2tMPhqQtrAM+iw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bogosity: Unsure, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.520000, version=1.2.4
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfAc9zRkJeLZ9pL9cAIYBmZANslRwmWvdgNpDbCZL4P51s2V66m+qpui2b0t794Pz0JUigARgoDnMU3JPTQV9LBCus/Naqd+3Uhl+p87X07xIES1tYImy YVks8m4dhUX1LJ0DbKqBv1LvHE61CmbIar5iH4YPpuaeGSPdpXv8kl5UODWW1FIWPzP3IWvOZ+3/bg==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-review/oG_RHc_tnHCLhS8JHupr7a9OG4k>
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: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 14:08:07 -0000

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