Subject: SCP URIs (draft-ietf-secsh-scp-sftp-ssh-uri-02)

From: Jacob Nevins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:42:17 +0100

I still think it's a mistake to attempt to standardise a URI scheme for
SCP. Apart from the fact that it's not a documented protocol, my
objection from 2003 still holds:

=-=-=-=-=-
How should filenames containing spaces be represented in scp: URLs?
Backslashes?

The scp "protocol" requires that such filenames be quoted in some
unspecified way (often using Unix shell quoting, but presumably
server-dependent).
IME, with many current clients it's up to the user to know the quoting
convention on the particular server. Either the quoting will have to
be embedded in URLs (and hence specified), or quoting becomes the
client's responsibility and the standardisation of the URL format will
not do much to achieve interoperability.

---

From: Steve Suehring <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:51:50 -0500

Joe and I had discussed this and we wanted to leave it to the consensus 
of the group as to whether SCP should remain in the spec.  My problem 
with including it is that there's no current draft for SCP but I'm open 
to input.

If we can get a quick consensus, I'll submit a new version of the draft
without the SCP bits (and with other fixes as I just noticed an e-mail
from Ben Harris.)

Steve

---

From: Joseph Galbraith <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 19:09:06 -0600

I would vote to give SCP the ax.

Thanks,

Joseph