Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-secsh-scp-sftp-ssh-uri-00.txt

[Steve Suehring <suehring%braingia.org@localhost>]

On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 01:00:43PM -0400, Joel N. Weber II wrote:
> > Indeed, the behavior should be exactly as if the user ran the ssh client 
> > without specifying a port.
> 
> Yep, and the URL spec should say that

I guess I'm just not sure if we need to get more specific about the port.  
In looking at RFC 2396, "If the port is omitted, the default port number
is assumed."  The wording as it stands in the draft is "If the port is not
included, port 22 is assumed."  Therefore, should we just change it to: 
"If the port is not included, the default port is assumed."?  I personally 
like it as is with the specific port included, but I'm not against 
changing it.

Steve