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

[Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld%east.sun.com@localhost>]

> 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.

one alternate wording making it clear this document isn't inventing
anything:

   "if the port is not included, the default port (22) is assumed"

However, the ssh clients I'm familiar with generally include the
ability to have a local configuration override which can replace both
port number and ip address on a host-by-host basis -- this does throw
something of a monkey wrench into the mix.  

In the past, I've used this to good effect (in combination with other
kludgy bits of duct tape and bailing wire) to work around connectivity
abnormalities of various sorts..

					- Bill