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

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?


Graham Klyne
For email:

Received on Monday, 22 November 2004 10:38:45 UTC