- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:19:54 +0000
- 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 UTC