Hi Dave,
Thanks for the new PSI draft!
About adding SMB right away to our PSI spec:
Caution - the 'smb:' URL spec is quite mature (and widely deployed) -
but it has just _finally_ been submitted last week to the IETF's "URI
Review" mailing - the moderator (Ted Hardie) just replied that he'd
be busy until after the IETF 57th Plenary in Vienna, Austria next week
(13-18 July).
Ted also asked "do the implementations support/use 'smb:' or 'cifs:'
synonym schemes defined in this I-D"?
Chris replied that they _all_ support/use "smb:" - some also accept
'cifs:' for compatibility - good news for PSI simplicity.
If we move from 'pwg-unc:' to 'smb:' right now, we'll have (I believe)
a Normative dependency on an unreviewed Internet-Draft. To get 'smb:'
published as an approved RFC will take: a) review and revision on the
mailing list; b) review and approval by an IETF Area Director; c) an
IETF 4-week 'last call'; and d) movement through RFC Editor's queue.
That's six to twelve months (pretty conservatively, I'm afraid).
A possible finesse would be to put the "smb:" replacement for "pwg-unc:"
in a new appendix "Experimental Target Device URLs (Informative)" (where
we could also put my current work-in-progress on PWG URL schemes for
Novell PServer, AppleTalk PAP and other legacy print protocols).
I'm also plugging away at a threats model and discussion for a decent
"Security Considerations" section of PSI.
Which do you want first? More legacy URL schemes with ABNF and so on,
or the Security Considerations?
Cheers,
- Ira McDonald
High North Inc
-----Original Message-----
From: HALL,DAVID (HP-Vancouver,ex1) [mailto:dhall@hp.com]
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 2:13 PM
To: 'McDonald, Ira'; 'ps@pwg.org'
Subject: RE: PS> FW: SMB URL v05.
After reviewing the SMB specification, it seem that the smb: scheme should
replace the pwg-unc: scheme that we have defined in PSI.
Any dissention? I'll make a pass at getting it in the spec, and then we can
review at tomorrows telecon.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:imcdonald@sharplabs.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 11:37 AM
To: 'ps@pwg.org'
Subject: PS> FW: SMB URL v05.
Hi folks,
I've been corresponding with Chris Hertel (author of the 'smb:' URL
scheme) recently. We could use the standard 'smb:' scheme to
completely replace our need for a 'pwg-unc:' scheme in PSI/1.0.
Chris says that it's already shipping in Mac OS 10 and elsewhere.
Below is Chris' note to the IETF URI Review mailing list (a recent
effort by IETF Area Director Ted Hardie to 'move along' URL schemes).
Very good terse summary of the issues around SMB URLs in the TCP/IP
environment. The spec itself is excellent reading (see URL below).
Cheers,
- Ira McDonald
High North Inc
-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher R. Hertel [mailto:crh@ubiqx.mn.org]
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 3:23 AM
To: uri-review@ietf.org
Subject: SMB URL v05.
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/ -)----- crh@ubiqx.mn.org OnLineBook -- http://ubiqx.org/cifs/ -)----- crh@ubiqx.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 08 2003 - 12:10:48 EDT