[Dev] Connection Path

[Dylan White]

Obviously I am all for this idea.  I feel that if we continue to use the URI/URL scheme as we move forward with ZipTie, we are just going to shoot ourselves in the foot.  It shouldn't take too long to convert what we have with the URI to a friendlier XML format like the one Leo laid out.


-----Original Message-----
From: dev-bounces at ziptie.org on behalf of Ryan Kruse
Sent: Tue 7/10/2007 7:31 AM
To: ZipTie Development List
Subject: Re: [Dev] Connection Path
 
I like it.

-----Original Message-----
From: "Leo Bayer" <lbayer at alterpoint.com>
To: "dev at ziptie.org" <dev at ziptie.org>
Sent: 7/10/07 12:27 AM
Subject: [Dev] Connection Path

A couple of weeks ago Dylan and I talked about a different way of defining connection information due to some shortcomings we saw with using a URL.
 
We though that instead of using a URL we could use an XML format something like this...
 
<connection ip="10.100.22.6">
    <telnet port="23"/>
    <tftp server="10.10.10.10" port="69" />
    <snmp version="2" port="161"/>
 
    <!-- conceivably for jumphost... -->
    <connection ip="other">
        ...
        <credentials> ...</credentials>
    </connection>
</connection>
 
... more or less.
 
Using a URL would indicate a hierarchical structure to a connection but the standard connections aren't hierarchical.  For instance, TFTP is somewhat tangent Telnet and SNMP is even more tangent.  The SNMP connection is not in any way associated with the telnet or tftp connection.  Giving a protocol set, say Telnet-SNMP, how do you know which protocol is the first one.  It could be 'snmp://host:port/?telnet' or whatever. 
 
The reason for supporting hierarchical connection using the URLs would be for supporting arbitrary deep connections (jumphost, terminal servers, etc).  Considering the arbitrariness of protocol relationships it is not clear what the URL would look like.  By explicitly defining the connection using xml we could conceivably add jumphost support in a clean way (possibly nesting connection elements within each other).  Using this, or a similar xml format, would make what is supported explicit in the format.
 
Also, I'm not clear how credentials for URL connectionPaths are supposed to work.  Each jump in a connectionPath would have to have it's own set of credentials.  With this xml the credentials could be placed as a child of the connection allowing for any number of connection elements each with their own credentials.
 
 
Thoughts?
 
 - Leo
 

_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
Dev at ziptie.org
http://mailman.ziptie.org/listinfo/dev

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 3750 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.ziptie.org/pipermail/dev/attachments/20070710/5e8a4118/attachment-0001.bin