Re: [Uri-review] ssh URI

Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> Tue, 13 October 2009 07:44 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 CBA303A6928 for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:44:09 -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 cD1txVRV5Stu for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:44:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ey-out-2122.google.com (ey-out-2122.google.com [74.125.78.24]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA8083A6407 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:44:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ey-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 22so2297403eye.51 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:44:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.85.147 with SMTP id u19mr2275501wee.88.1255419844836; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:44:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1255395156.5481.10083.camel@dbooth-laptop>
References: <20091009160149.GB16908@braingia.org> <1255366894.5481.8445.camel@dbooth-laptop> <5EAB4D387A4A4B7C854FBD1869729771@POCZTOWIEC> <1255395156.5481.10083.camel@dbooth-laptop>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:44:04 +0200
Message-ID: <eb19f3360910130044q59145662m5d683b0589119cea@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
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: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 07:44:09 -0000

[snip]

David,

Can I suggest a new workflow for these ideas?

Instead of intervening when every new URI scheme proposal comes
through these lists, perhaps you could work to persuade the W3C TAG of
them instead? I think I understand where you're coming from, but the
approach is pretty alien to URIs as currently deployed, particularly
with regard to browser infrastructure, which at the moment is
universally keyed off of the scheme prefix and unlikely to change
rapidly due to the huge security implications.

There might be something in these ideas (though I remain generally
skeptical when it comes to protocols - such as ssh - rather than
content/object identifiers eg. doi, xri, ...). At the moment they're
being discussed in an ad hoc way whenever someone proposes a new
scheme. Could it be more efficient to propose and refine them through
the TAG, perhaps?

cheers,

Dan