- From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 07:36:08 -0700
- To: Steve Suehring <suehring@braingia.org>
- Cc: uri-review@ietf.org, uri@w3.org
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Steve Suehring <suehring@braingia.org> 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. > ... > > Please provide feedback as appropriate. What does SFTP support GET and not PUT? Is the syntax/protocol of directory listings standardized elsewhere? What happens if I open a directory without the correct typecode? My potentially naive impression is that the whole typecode thing adds more complexity than value: it is easy to pipe the output into a tool that does the right newline conversions. What happen to scp URLs? The assertion that the ssh URI scheme is designed to invoke an interactive terminal session strikes me as expressing a user interface decision, which URI schemes typically do not. I would reword it this way: The intended usage of the SSH URI is to declare the existence of an SSH listener. This information could be used (for example) by a web user agent to invoke an interactive SSH terminal program, or as input to a script that would automate some action on the remote host." It would be nice if a server could configure a list of "safe commands" that it would accept as parameters. A future curl might allow this: curl ssh://user@host.example.com?uptime > remote_uptime.txt curl ssh://user@host.example.com?ifconfig > remote_config.txt The server config might be as simple as a list of commands that are whitelisted for use this way. Paul Prescod
Received on Wednesday, 14 October 2009 14:36:41 UTC