Subject: [Uri-review] SMB URL v05.

From: "Christopher R. Hertel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 02:23:25 -0500

Hello everyone.

I've just joined this list.  Please be gentle.  ;)

I have been working sporadically on a URI specification for SMB.  SMB is the
Server Message Block protocol, which is at the heart of Microsoft's
filesharing system (now known as CIFS).  The SMB filesharing protocol is
implemented by several "third party" vendors, and in Open Source by the
Samba and jCIFS projects.

SMB itself is a relatively old protocol, and there are a number of quirks
that must be accounted for in the URI design.  In particular, there is all
of RFC1001/1002 (STD 19) which specifies a mechanism for implementing the
NetBIOS API on top of TCP/UDP/IPv4.  Along with that comes all sorts of
context information which must be supplied in order to give the NetBIOS
addresses meaning in an IP environment.

I have been providing draft SMB URI specifications to the IETF for about 2.5
years now.  The current version number is 04, and it is due to expire in a
few days.  I have a minor update ready, and will send it along to keep the
draft alive.  The problems are:

1) I really have no idea how to push the SMB URI Internet Draft through the
   standards process.
2) I know a lot about SMB and NBT, and very little about URIs.  To be
honest,
   I'm not really clear on the difference between a URL and a URI (and I'm
   not even ashamed to admit it).  :)
3) SMB is a difficult protocol, and the most important aspect of the drafts
   that I have submitted is the semantic mapping between the SMB URI format
   and SMB/NBT (NBT is a name commonly given to NetBIOS over TCP/IP as
   described in STD 19).

In the past few years, I have gotten some very helpful feedback from Roy
Fielding and Larry Masinter, and also from the SMB/CIFS development
community.  More recently, however, I have also received a request to "get
on with it".  A very reasonable request, I believe.

Several vendors have already implemented support for the SMB URI in their
products.  It is in Thursby's Dave, Mac OS 10, and KDE Konqueror, to name a
few.

So, I am writing to ask for assistance in finishing this thing, either by
bronzing it and putting it on a pedestal or by driving a stake through it's
corrupt and evil heart.

The current draft may be found here:
  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crhertel-smb-url-04.txt

I look forward to your replies (yes, I'm wearing a helmet).

Sincerely,

Chris Hertel -)-----

-- 
"Implementing CIFS - the Common Internet FileSystem" ISBN: 013047116X
Samba Team -- http://www.samba.org/     -)-----   Christopher R. Hertel
jCIFS Team -- http://jcifs.samba.org/   -)-----   ubiqx development, uninq.
ubiqx Team -- http://www.ubiqx.org/     -)-----   [email-masked]
OnLineBook -- http://ubiqx.org/cifs/    -)-----   [email-masked]

_______________________________________________
Uri-review mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 12:24:33 -0700

Hi Christopher,
	Thanks for your message; I've just had a chance to
review the draft.  As you may know, the IETF is getting ready
for a face-to-face meeting next week, so there may be
a relatively low response right now.
	One quick question:  you note that several
have implemented this URI  in products--have they done
that using smb: or cifs:?
			regards,
				Ted Hardie

---

From: "Christopher R. Hertel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 14:35:24 -0500

> a relatively low response right now.

Thanks for letting me know.  I should be paying more attention.  :)

I will submit a new revision in the next 24 hours, just to keep the draft 
"alive".  There are several corrections, but not much by way of new 
material.

> that using smb: or cifs:?

All of those of which I am aware of support "smb:", and some also support
"cifs:".  I believe that one of them may have started with "cifs:" and 
then added "smb:" as a synonym to be compatible with other 
implementations.

I had originally proposed that "smb:" be used for SMB over NBT
(RFC1001/1002) transport, and that "cifs:" be used for the newer version
which transports smb protocol directly over "naked" tcp (that is, without
the NBT layer).  That suggestion earned me a good deal of verbal abuse 
from the CIFS community (which is okay... we're a feisty bunch).

The SMB URL (URI?) is highly overloaded as a result.  It supports two 
transports (though, honestly, there isn't really a lot of difference 
between the two) and also supports the NBT address space and workgroup 
concept.

As it turns out, however, this is all quite do-able.

Thanks for your reply!

Chris -)-----