Subject: Re: [Uri-review] SMB URL v05.

From: "Christopher R. Hertel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 13:49:52 -0500

The version 05 SMB URL draft is now on the IETF site (has been for a
while, it seems).

  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crhertel-smb-url-05.txt

There has been some good, constructive criticism with regard to this
draft.  I responded as best I could to explain the reasoning behind the
current design (but I tried to avoid stating that the reasoning itself was
"correct").  That provides two perspectives but no resolution, and I would
really like to move toward some sort of resolution.

Additional discussion of the SMB URL can be found here:

  http://ubiqx.org/cifs/Appendix-D.html

On a more general note, does anyone have specific changes that should be
made to the draft's style or format before moving on to the content?  I
write a lot, but Internet Drafts are far from being my specialty, so I
would appreciate the chance to correct any errors in the format or
presentation of the draft itself.  That is, I want to make sure it meets
IETF standards.

Looking forward to your replies.

Chris -)-----

-- 
"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: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 10:30:15 -0400

Hello Christopher,

Have you checked your syntax for compatibility with the RFC2396bis
update (draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-03)?

In particular, it looks like you are allowing non-DNS stuff in
the authority (hostname) part. RDF2396bis does no longer allow
this.

Regards,    Martin.

---

From: "Christopher R. Hertel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:44:20 -0500

> the authority (hostname) part. RDF2396bis does no longer allow

There's no option on that.  SMB can and does use RFC1001/1002 NBT naming 
for service access.  Any URL for SMB must support this.  It's just part of 
the protocol.

Chris -)-----

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 15:25:36 -0400

Hello Chris, others,

[I'm copying this to the uri list and the iri list to make sure
the necessary coordination/discussion happens.]

This seems to be a conflict between some changes to RFC2396bis
and some new uri scheme registrations. Limiting the 'authority'
part of URIs to DNS hostnames seemed a good idea in March at the
URI BOF at the IETF in SF. But this SMB scheme seems to be at
least one scheme that would like to have it differently.
Are there other such schemes? I have some vague suspicion
that this may also apply to draft-josefsson-dns-url-08.txt.
I have copied Simon.

Regards,    Martin.