Fwd: sftp url rfc draft

[Robey Pointer]

A birdie told me that some list moderation software may have eaten this.


Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Salowey, Joe" <jsalowey at cisco.com>
> Date: 11 December 2005 20:55:38 PST
> To: "Robey Pointer" <robey at lag.net>, <suehring at braingia.com>
> Cc: "Bazaar-NG BZR" <bazaar-ng at lists.canonical.com>
> Subject: RE: sftp url rfc draft
>
> Hi Robey,
>
> I see the confusion and I share the confusion.   I looks the URI RFC
> (3586) allows this in the text portion, but the ABNF looks like it may
> disallow a double slash.  In general the two URLs have different  
> meaning
> since the use of the "/" indicates it is part of the URL hierarchical
> structure and the use of the "%2F" indicates it is part of the path
> segment. It seems that the "/" representing the root of the file  
> system
> is hierarchical in nature and would not be escaped (the current draft
> would be wrong then).  I will have to check with a URL expert on this.
>
> What packages implement the de-facto standard of absolute paths only?
> Is this for SFTP protocol?  If this is the predominant way that the  
> URI
> is in use then it might be a good idea to have the document reflect  
> this
> convention.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Joe
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Robey Pointer [mailto:robey at lag.net]
>> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 1:45 PM
>> To: Salowey, Joe; suehring at braingia.com
>> Cc: Bazaar-NG BZR
>> Subject: sftp url rfc draft
>>
>> Hi there!
>>
>> At the bzr project (www.bazaar-ng.org) we plan to use sftp
>> urls to access remote source-code repositories, and there's
>> been some discussion about whether to use the current
>> de-facto standard (absolute paths only) or the new RFC draft
>> that you two have posted
>> here:
>> 	
>> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-secsh-scp-sftp-ssh-
>> uri-03.txt>
>>
>> which supports both absolute and relative paths.
>>
>> One point that's come up is that nobody wants to type "%2F"
>> in an url to get the equivalent of the old url behavior.  The
>> RFC seems to sometimes imply that using "//" would be okay
>> (since it would be otherwise meaningless), but sometimes
>> implies that this would be unacceptable.
>>
>> Because this point could affect our decision of which format
>> to use, could you clarify if a path like
>>
>> 	sftp://user@host//absolute/path
>>
>> would be an acceptable equivalent to
>>
>> 	sftp://user@host/%2Fabsolute/path
>>
>> ?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> robey
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20051211/5f918d07/attachment.htm