Subject: [Uri-review] Request for sftp URI scheme

From: Rick van Rein <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 09:53:05 +0200

Hello,

This is a registration that seems to be long overdue (and we need it).

Confusion in implementations already seems to exist, at least I've once
seen the use of "ssh:" in a place where "sftp:" should have been used.
Looking at the spec of "ssh:" this is "like telnet" and so not menat for
file transfer, so I would like to propose "sftp:" based on the same
documentation as originally used for "ssh:" registration.

Scheme name:
     sftp

Status:
     Provisional

Applications/protocols that use this scheme name:
     WinSCP,          https://winscp.net/eng/docs/session_url
     Konqueror / KIO, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVE84xgRrNE

     Plus, we intend to include it into ARPA2 Reservoir, to connect to
     remote object stores across realm boundaries, using standardised
     and secure URIs.  Proper authentication will be the starting point
     for refined access control, which can also allow remote users in.
     http://reservoir.arpa2.net
     http://idp.arpa2.net/radius.html

Contact:
     Rick van Rein <[email-masked]>

Change controller:
     Rick van Rein <[email-masked]>
     Architect for the InternetWide.org project.

References:
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Shell
     http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-secsh-scp-sftp-ssh-uri

Thanks,

Rick van Rein
OpenFortress / InternetWide / ARPA2

---

From: Ira McDonald <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 07:13:50 -0400

Hi Rick,

Your referenced URI I-D in section 4.6 Protocols using this URI Scheme
references https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-secsh-filexfer/
which
is expired and was abandoned in 2006.

Two separate efforts to standardize SFTP (the protocol) in IETF failed a
long time ago.  Interoperability between different versions is not
available.

Do you intend to start an IETF standards-track effort to standardize
SFTP?  Or at least to point to a stable, current spec of SFTP protocol?
Otherwise, I believe that even a provisional registration is of dubious
value.

Cheers,
- Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
mailto: [email-masked]
Jan-April: 579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176  734-944-0094
May-Dec: PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839  906-494-2434

On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 3:53 AM Rick van Rein <[email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: Rick van Rein <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 16:07:47 +0200

Hello Ira,

> long time ago.

I was afraid it had been tried, but didn't know how to find out, other
than try this.

> Interoperability between different versions is not
> available.

IOW, standardisation is going to set some people on fire because they
would be rendered the bad guys.  That's indeed a likely recipe for
failure in the IETF, where all voices are heard, I fear.

> SFTP?  Or at least to point to a stable, current spec of SFTP protocol?

That is not my current intention.

> Otherwise, I believe that even a provisional registration is of dubious

Thanks for explaining that.  I shall keep it in the back of my head in
case we ever want to go that way.  I suppose for our own application
I'll have to act in a non-standard manner then.

-Rick