Re: [Uri-review] ssh URI

'Steve Suehring' <suehring@braingia.org> Fri, 09 October 2009 20:41 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 D6AE73A62C1 for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Oct 2009 13:41:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.028
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.028 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.237, 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 q6-uQCT0iYtT for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Oct 2009 13:41:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dfw0.icgmedia.com (dfw0.icgmedia.com [69.93.3.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 207FE3A65A6 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Oct 2009 13:41:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dfw0.icgmedia.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5677F17194; Fri, 9 Oct 2009 15:43:00 -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 eIYbknvPuQMU; Fri, 9 Oct 2009 15:42:55 -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 7534116F9F; Fri, 9 Oct 2009 15:42:55 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by titania.braingia.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 253A5A2007; Fri, 9 Oct 2009 15:42:54 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 15:42:54 -0500
From: 'Steve Suehring' <suehring@braingia.org>
To: K?i?tof ?elechovski <giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl>
Message-ID: <20091009204254.GC18094@braingia.org>
References: <20091009160149.GB16908@braingia.org> <BAAAC48036DE4C1A96E6AB1D677D87C2@POCZTOWIEC>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <BAAAC48036DE4C1A96E6AB1D677D87C2@POCZTOWIEC>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
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: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 20:41:15 -0000

Hello,

Thank you for the feedback.  Could you help me with #2 on your list?  We 
have this in the draft now:

"The SSH URI does not define a usage for a non-empty path element.  If a 
non-empty path element is included in an SSH URI then it SHOULD be 
ignored."

Should that specific sentence be amended or is there some additional 
clarification necessary?

Steve

On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 07:51:50PM +0200, K?i?tof ?elechovski wrote:
>   1. [4.4] Outdated internal references: The parameters are not described in
> section 4.1.
>   2. [4.4] The syntax does not forbid having a nonempty path component but a
> semantic for one is not described.
>   3. [5.1] I would rather have 
> ssh://user@host.example.com?fingerprint=ssh-dss-c1-b1-30-29-d7-b8-de-6c-97-7
> 7-10-d7-46-41-63-87
> for obvious reasons.
> Please consider
> Chris