- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:55:59 -0400
- To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
- Cc: Steve Suehring <suehring@braingia.org>, uri-review@ietf.org, uri@w3.org
On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 19:50 +0200, Eliot Lear wrote: > David, > > I see some definite negatives to what you are suggesting: > > 1. Requires some sort of consortia or legal framework. It does require something, but it isn't much -- just the maintenance of a URI domain. You could even base your URI prefixes on purl.org PURLs, if want to permit the resolution to move around over time: http://purl.org/docs/index.html > 1. Requires an additional resolution. SSH is commonly used for > administration, and so I would be loathe to add that sort of > step. No, it doesn't *require* an additional resolution. The additional resolution only comes into play as a fallback, if the client doesn't know how to handle them as special SSH URIs. > 1. Requires ssh applications to understand HTTP URI schema. No, they just need to know to recognize the special SSH HTTP URI prefix, which might be something like "http://sshuri.org/". This is no different in principle from recognizing the special "ssh:" URI prefix if a new scheme is used. David Booth > Or do I misread what you are suggesting? > > Eliot > > > > On 10/12/09 7:01 PM, David Booth wrote: > > I don't see a need to define a new URI scheme for this. You can just > > define an http URI prefix for this purpose, as described in > > http://dbooth.org/2006/urn2http/ > > > > Furthermore, as Graham Klyne suggested during a similar discussion > > earlier, "an HTTP URI can also retrieve a protocol [handler] > > implementation" > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2009Sep/0029.html > > This could dramatically improve the adoption rate of a new protocol. > > > > David Booth > > > > > > On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 11:01 -0500, Steve Suehring wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > Attached is a draft to be submitted to the IETF for URI scheme related > > > to secure shell (ssh). The draft was originally included in the secsh > > > Working Group which has since concluded. > > > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/wg/secsh/draft-ietf-secsh-scp-sftp-ssh-uri/ > > > > > > I recently received a request to pick this draft back up and the > > > co-author and I will be submitting it to the IETF under the Application > > > Area. > > > > > > Please provide feedback as appropriate. > > > > > > Thank you for your time. > > > > > > Steve Suehring > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Uri-review mailing list > > > Uri-review@ietf.org > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review > > > > -- David Booth, Ph.D. Cleveland Clinic (contractor) Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
Received on Monday, 12 October 2009 18:56:30 UTC