Subject: Re: FW: SCP/SFTP/SSH URI Format Draft Update

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:48:47 -0500

[oops, you just sent in the draft.  murphy's law in action..]

[WG chair hat off]

Nit:

   The URIs for SFTP and SCP are hierarcical URIs where each component  

I think you mean "hierarchical".

Content:

   The fingerprint MAY be used to validate the 
   authenticity of the host key if the URL was obtained from an 
   authenticated source with its integrity protected.  

awkward wording.  how about:

   The fingerprint MAY be used to validate the authenticity of the
   host key if the URL was obtained from a trusted source.  

Yes, "trusted" is overloaded.  The text as written would disallow an
embedded system from using the fingerprint part of a URI if it was,
for example, burned into a boot image..
   
This one I'm taking issue with:

   There MUST be only one fingerprint parameter per host-key-alg for a
   given URL. 

I'm sure there's a good reason for this restriction, but I don't see
it offhand.  Seems like having multiple fingerprints would allow for
graceful host-key rollover...

					- Bill

---

From: "Joseph Salowey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:00:20 -0800

> Yes, "trusted" is overloaded.  The text as written would 
> disallow an embedded system from using the fingerprint part 
> of a URI if it was, for example, burned into a boot image..
>  

[Joe] OK, makes sense.

> I'm sure there's a good reason for this restriction, but I 
> don't see it offhand.  Seems like having multiple 
> fingerprints would allow for graceful host-key rollover...
> 
[Joe] I'm not sure we had a good reason to limit it. At least I can't
think of one now.  Unless someone has an objection I think we can allow
this.

---

From: Steve Suehring <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:10:11 -0600

> think of one now.  Unless someone has an objection I think we can allow

I've been racking my brain on this because I really thought there was a
reason for the limitation.  I can't find it in the archives so maybe I
didn't share that thought.  In any event, it seems as though the
consensus is definitely for multiple fingerprints.

Steve