Re: [Uri-review] ssh URI

Dan Brickley writes:

> Or at least the TAG might be the right forum for knocking the ideas 
> into more widely appealing shape.

The TAG has considered these questions on and off for several years, and 
under a variety of banners.  At one point, when I was new on the TAG, I 
tried pulling together drafts of a finding [1] under our ISSUE-49 
(schemeProtocols) [2].  Either because I didn't understand the issues well 
enough, or as likely because several of the very smart and knowledgeable 
people in the room didn't actually agree on how things work in this space, 
I didn't feel we were getting to closure, and I decided to put the work 
down for a few years.  I was in fact thinking of trying to pick it up 
again, when my appointment as chair diverted most of my TAG time.

There is also a work-in-progress document "Guidelines for Web-based 
naming" [3] being written by Henry Thompson and Jonathan Rees, associated 
with our ISSUE-50 (URNsandRegistries) [4].  While this has been discussed 
quite a bit and is perceived as making progress, and doesn't have consenus 
as a TAG finding at this point either. 

I do think it's fair to say that many, if not all, individual members of 
the TAG do have sympathy with the general advice of "try to use widely 
deployed schemes, and especially http, when you can, rather than inventing 
a new one."  I think David Booth has done a good job of outlining the 
advantages promoted by advocates of that position.  What exactly are the 
limits of that guidance, and when one should indeed implement a new 
scheme, seems to remain the subject of disagreement.



Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142

Dan Brickley <>
Sent by:
10/13/2009 03:35 PM
        To:     Ted Hardie <>
        cc:     David Booth <>,,, (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        Re: [Uri-review] ssh URI

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 9:19 PM, Ted Hardie <> wrote:
> While I applaud the basic sentiment of not having this discussion
> every time a new URI scheme comes up, I think you'd have to persuade
> the IETF rather than the TAG.

You're right, of course. I should have put it differently. I meant to
express gently that if anyone around here is going to be persuaded of
this approach, it's most likely to be the TAG. Or at least the TAG
might be the right forum for knocking the ideas into more widely
appealing shape. If they're persuaded, then the approach would be
worth requesting serious review from other parties, chief amongst
those being IETF.

>                                                    The IETF is 
responsible for URI
> registration, and the documents are pretty clear on that point.  The
> IESG and IAB take the TAG's input very seriously, of course, but the
> question of URI registration is one where there has been divergence
> for some time.  As the discussion above notes, having HTTP always in
> the URI loop may make sense for the web; it doesn't work for other
> deployments and other protocols.

Yes. Even in W3C circles there are a fair number of different views
bouncing around.

I spent a while re-reading the early years of www-talk today, and it's
a bit disheartening how much the same old questions are still bouncing
around 18 years later. And I'm sure not so fun for people just trying
to register a scheme who get dragged into this decades-long

> I personally agree with those saying ssh ought to be an independent
> scheme.  It has a widely installed user base and I have seen
> individuals use ssh:hostname as a pseudo-URI for some time.  Pushing
> out a real spec for the URI scheme would avoid interoperability
> problems there, and that in itself is goodness.

Completely agree...



Received on Wednesday, 14 October 2009 01:07:01 UTC