URI format for server config

[shadowsocks]

URI format for server config

[madeye]

@shadowsocks/contributors

[clowwindy]

Encode pass:encrypt@hostname:port with base64

[madeye]

OK, like shadow://cGFzczplbmNyeXB0QGhvc3RuYW1lOnBvcnQ=/?

[clowwindy]

That's OK.
// can be removed as well.

[madeye]

I'm not sure that whether shadow:cGFzczplbmNyeXB0QGhvc3RuYW1lOnBvcnQ= can be resolved as a valid URI? And what about the = here, is it valid?

[madeye]

The latest URI looks like that:

Plain: shadow:bf-cfb:[email protected]:1234

BASE64 encoded (UTF-8, no padding): shadow:YmYtY2ZiOnBhc3NAdGVzdC5jb206MTIzNA

QR Image:

[clowwindy]

iOS version will also implement this protocol soon.

[ayanamist]

Can you guys use a full URI like shadowsocks://bf-cfb:[email protected]:1234 and shadowsocks://YmYtY2ZiOnBhc3NAdGVzdC5jb206MTIzNA which scheme added with two backslashs.
Also i suggest use shadowsocks instead of shadow to avoid potential name conflicts with any shadow xxx apps.

[madeye]

IMHO, shadowsocks:// is too long.

[ayanamist]

So use ss:// instead? I think avoiding name conflict is more important.

[shao222]

我觉得 sss: 代替shadow:
2013年12月1日 下午2:27于 "Max Lv" [email protected]写道：

IMHO, shadowsocks:// is too long.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/51#issuecomment-29568314
.

[madeye]

Maybe ss: is better :)

[ayanamist]

ss:blahblah is not a valid url. We should use a valid url so that it can be used in Intent

[madeye]

Actually it's a valid URI, like this mailto:[email protected]

[clowwindy]

Actually it's not a uri. It's just a protocol. So it's ok to remove slashes.
On Dec 1, 2013 2:33 PM, "Max Lv" [email protected] wrote:

Actually it's a valid URI, like this mailto:[email protected]

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/51#issuecomment-29568392
.

[ayanamist]

So you guys don't want to invoke such a url to pass data from any place to shadowsocks apps? You should check all platforms support such thing can be passed from one app to another, especially on iOS.

[madeye]

It's valid URI and can be used as a intent natively in Android....

[clowwindy]

I'll give iOS a test.
On Dec 1, 2013 2:38 PM, "ayanamist" [email protected] wrote:

So you guys don't want to invoke such a url to pass data from any place to
shadowsocks apps? You should check all platforms support such thing can be
passed from one app to another, especially on iOS.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/51#issuecomment-29568443
.

[ayanamist]

@madeye Yes it's supported on Android i know, so i emphasis on ugly iOS.

[clowwindy]

@madeye @ayanamist

Adding // results better compatibility in several qrcode scanner apps on iOS.

[ayanamist]

This is what i was worried about. So ss://blahblah are more compatible.

[clowwindy]

Maybe I should add a qrcode scanner directly into the app. Even Weixin takes the scan results as pure text. No matter if // exists.

[madeye]

Sounds good for me. Let's use ss:// instead.

[ayanamist]

@clowwindy You are going to make problem more complicated....

[clowwindy]

Safari supports shadow://
QRCode supports shadow://
QR.Code supports shadow://
QuickMark supports shadow://
Barcodes supports both
Weixin supports neither

[clowwindy]

@ayanamist Thanks pal. Your advice is really helpful.

[CzBiX]

Can we add support for Issuer/Label just like Google Authenticator?