W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > November 2004

Re: Are we done with draft-hoffman-ftp-uri-02.txt?

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:19:54 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20041122101425.033ace58@127.0.0.1>
To: Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>, Asbjørn Ulsberg <asbjorn@tigerstaden.no>
Cc: "URI List" <uri@w3.org>

At 18:01 21/11/04 -0800, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:

>At 2:41 AM +0100 11/22/04, Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:
>
>[[ Thanks for the editorial comments; I've made them all. ]]
>
>>   2.1 FTP Name and Password
>>
>>       [...] If the URL supplies a user name but no password [...]
>>
>>Is such behavioural description supposed to be a part of an URI scheme 
>>specification? Doesn't this rather belong in a protocol spec?
>
>I tend to agree with Abjørn here and would like to take out the sentence. 
>How do others feel?

I tend to agree.

As FTP is a protocol that uses passwords, would it not be a good thing for 
the security considerations to draw specific attention to the password 
issues in RFC2396bis?

>>   2.5 Optimization
>>
>>Same as my comment to 2.1. Is such behavioural description supposed to be 
>>a part of an URI scheme specification?
>
>Fully agree. How do others feel?

Ambivalent.  Agree in principle, but wonder if, in practice, the comment 
about no common hierarchy in FTP might not save some interoperability failures?

#g


------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Monday, 22 November 2004 10:38:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:35 GMT